John Makujina, «‘Till Death Do Us Part’? Or the Continuation of Marriage in the Eschaton? Answering Recent Objections to the Traditional Reading of Gameo - Gamizo in the Synoptic Gospels.» filologia-neotestamentaria, Vol. 25 (2012) 57-74 page 71

Vol 25 (2012)

John Makujina, «‘Till Death Do Us Part’? Or the Continuation of Marriage in the Eschaton? Answering Recent Objections to the Traditional Reading of Gameo - Gamizo in the Synoptic Gospels.», Vol. 25 (2012) 57-74

B. Witherington III et al. propose that gameo and gamizo in Matt 22,30 (par. Mark 12,25; Luke 20,34-36) describe entrance into marriage rather than the state of marriage. Consequently, these passages indicate no more than the impossibility of new marriages in the resurrection; they do not, by themselves, insists Witherington, teach the termination of existing marriages, as has been ordinarily assumed. In contrast, this article argues for the traditional interpretation of these texts by demonstrating that when combined gameo and gamizo posses an idiomatic value and refer to the institution of marriage and the family, which, according to Jesus, will end with this age.

See more by the same author

Page 71/74
«
‹
71
72
73
74
›

‘Till Death do us Part’ ? or the Continuation of Marriage... 71 first appearance in the Greek language in the Gospels35. Numerous oc- currences thereafter are citations or adaptations of the Gospel texts, though a few appear to be independently derived (e.g., legal works based on the Code of Justinian)36. Otherwise, γαμέω and γαμίζω also turn up in close proximity in lexical and grammatical documents, where such juxtaposition is to be expected37. Even though the formula is first extant in the Gospels, the concept of marrying and giving in marriage is much older in Greek culture and is reminiscent of its Semitic counterpart. Not surprisingly, daughters were given in marriage by their fathers in Greek antiquity as well38, where ἐκδίδωμι and γαμέομαι were commonly used to denote the betrothing of a daughter39. More so, these verbs were sometimes combined with γαμέω, or its surrogates, in ways that are remarkably similar to jql-/tn. Perhaps the most relevant for our purposes is the roughly contem- porary Trojan Discourse 48 (Dio Chrysostom): Οὕτως δὲ ἔθους ὄντος 35 The LXX rather consistently translates jql and /tn literally with λαμβάνω and δίδωμι (less often with ἐκδίδωμι, Exod 2,21; Lev 21,3; 1 Macc 10,58). Γαμέω is used only four times (Esth 10,3; 2 Macc 14,25 [2x]; 4 Macc 16,9), and γαμίζω and its variations are entirely absent. The Pseudepigrapha manifests the same preference for λαμβάνω and δίδωμι (λαμβάνω: T. Levi. 9,10; 11,1; 12,1.4.5; 14,6; T. Jud.13,4.7; 14,6; T. Iss. 3,5; T. Jos. 18,3; 4 Bar. 8,3; Jos. Asen. 1,14; 20,6; 23,4.5; 24,13; 1 En. 7,1; 12,4; 106,1; T. Job 45,3; δίδωμι: T. Jud. 8,2; T. Naph. 1,11; Jos. Asen. 1,11-12; 20,7; γαμέω: T. Jud. 12,2; 4 Bar. 8,5; Jos. Asen. 4,15; 1 En. 106,14). Λαμβάνω also functions in this capacity in Isocrates, Aeginet. 46.6 and P. Eleph I. 2-3. Alternatives for λαμβάνω include ἄγω, “take (a wife)” (Herodotus, Hist. 5.92; 9.111), ἐπάγω, “take (a wife)” (Stobaeus, Anthologium, 4.28.18; P. Tebt I 104:19). For the latter reference see MM 227. Similarly ἐπεισάγω, “take another wife”. NewDocs, 6.3-4; MM 231; LSJ 614-615. 36 Epanagoge, 16.22; Basilica, 28.5.27; 28.5.30; Prochiron, 4.26; Manuale legum sive Hexabiblos 4.4.10. Most of these examples, following the Attic usage, adopt γαμέομαι, in- stead of γαμίζω, for “give in marriage”. See Taylor, Mark, 483; LSJ 337; MM 121; Aeschylus, Fr. (Mette) Tetralogy 15.d.131.4, 6. 37 Apollonius Dyscolus, De constructione 2.2.400; Lexica Syntactica γ.26.10; Etymo- logicum Genuinum β.153.2; Etymologicum Magnum 201.30; Etymologicum Symeonis, 1.454.24; Pseudo-Zonaras, Lexicon β.395.3. 38 S.M. Baugh, “Marriage and Family in Ancient Greek Society”, in K.M. Campbell (ed.), Marriage and Family in the Biblical World (Downers Grove, IL 2003) 107-110; H.J. Wolff, “Marriage Law and Family Organisation in Ancient Athens”, Traditio 2 (1944) 43-95. For similar customs and concepts in Roman marriage see S. Treggiari, Roman Marriage: Iusti Coniuges from the Time of Cicero to the Time of Ulpian (New York 1991) 5, 8,10, 21, 111, 126. 39 LSJ 504, 337; MM 121, 192; A. Wasserstein, “A Marriage Contract from the Province of Arabia Nova. Notes on Papyrus Yadin 18”, JQR 80 (July-October 1989) 105, n. 40, 109- 110; Wolff, “Marriage Law”, 48-49. See, also, Mur 116.4; P. Oxy. 905.15; P. Amst. 40.1.8- 9; P. Yadin 18. Alternatives for ἐκδίδωμι and γαμέομαι include δίδωμι (Herodotus, Hist. 1.107; 5.92; 9.111; Diodorus Siculus, Biblio. hist. 19.33.2.2), ἐκπέμπω (Plato, Pol. 310.c.10), and συνοικίζω (Herodotus, Hist. 2.121). Rarely, παραδίδωμι means “give in marriage”: Jos. Asen. 4,10; Tob 7,13.