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.
‘Till Death do us Part’ ? or the Continuation of Marriage... 73
Pol. 310.c.10, “and as much as they can, they marry wives [γαμοῦσί] of
this type, and in turn they send [ἐκπέμπουσι] those given in marriage
[τὰς ἐκδιδομένας] by them off to such kind”; Resp. 2.362b.3, “then
marrying [γαμεῖν] from whatever (family) he desires, (and) giving in
marriage [ἐκδιδόναι] to whomsoever he chooses”42. Although the com-
bined idiomatic component seems to be absent in these examples, an
idiomatic meaning—“arranging marriages”—is defensible for Leg. 5.742.c
(γαμοῦντα δὲ καὶ ἐκδιδόντα).
a. Analysis of the Continuity
It should not be considered unusual that two patriarchal cultures with
similar marital customs would have an occasional intersection of vocabu-
lary and idioms as well43. Therefore, any substantive connection between
the Gospels and these examples should not be pursued— primarily be-
cause the origin of γαμέω-γαμίζω can more easily and more plausibly
be located in indigenous literature. Perhaps a limited case for linguistic
interference could be made on the following grounds. Conceivably, the
OT idea could have been contracted to the formula γαμέω καὶ γαμίζω (à
la Herodotus, Hist. 5.92, etc.) under Greek influence. (But even here, the
companion expressions in Luke 17,27-28 indicate that compact, paired
constructions are entirely at home in a Semitic milieu44.) Additionally,
γαμέω-γαμίζω may be an innovation (Christian?) modeled on the pair
γαμέω-γαμέομαι, which is abundantly attested in Greek literature45.
Within these options, however, the possibility of Greek inspiration for
γαμέω-γαμίζω appears to be exhausted. It only remains to be observed
that the semi-literal γαμέω-γαμίζω was selected rather than the literal
and popular λαμβάνω-δίδωμι (e.g., LXX)—or variations thereof cited
42
See Herodotus, Hist. 4.145 (γαμέω-ἐκδίδωμι); Theophrastus, Char. 30.18-19 (γαμέω-
ἐκδίδωμι); Demosthenes, Leoch. 9.8-10.4 (γαμέω-ἐκδίδωμι); Isocrates, Aeginet. 46.5-6
(ἐκδίδωμι- λαμβάνω); Aeschylus, Fr. (Mette) Tetralogy 15.d.131.4, 6 (γαμέω-γαμέομαι).
See also the contractual and legal sense of ἐγγυάω, “give a bride in marriage”, which in the
middle voice means “receive a bride in marriage”. LSJ 468; Wolff, “Marriage Law”, 51-53.
The combination occurs in Herodotus, Hist. 6.130 (ἐγγυάω-ἐγγυάομαι). 2 Cor 11,2 has the
synonym ἁρμόζω, “betroth”.
43
Note that “eating and drinking” is also attested in Greek antiquity, evidently inde-
pendent of any Semitic influence. See, P.G. Bolt, “What Were the Sadducees Reading? An
Enquiry into the Literary Background of Mark 12:18-23”, TynBul 45 (1994) 381-382.
44
See Y. Avishur, Stylistic Studies of Word-Pairs in Biblical and Ancient Semitic
Literature (AOAT; Kevelaer 1984).
45
Plato, Leg. 11.926.c.1-3; Aeschylus, Fr. (Mette) Tetralogy 15.d.131.4, 6; Euripides,
Med. 288; Diodorus Siculus, Biblio. hist. 1.27.2; 19.33.2; Plutarch, Arist., 20.6; Plutarch,
Apoph. lac. 228.a.