BIBLIOTHECA EPHEMERIDUM THEOLOGICARUM LOVANIENSNM

CLXV

RESURRECTION
IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
---FESTSCHRIFT J. LAMBRECHT

EDITED BY

R. BIERINGER, V. KOPERSKI & B. LATAIRE

LEUVEN UITGEVERIJ PEETERS

UNIVERSITY PRESS LEUVEN - PARIS - DUDLEY, MA
2002
 TRANSLATING RESURRECTION
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SADDUCEES' BELIEF
IN THE TYNDALE-JOYE CONTROVERSY

This article was prepared in the context of an ongoing project on ver-

nacular Bible translations printed in Antwerp between 1526 and 1537'.
It will concentrate on an interesting argument in an exegetical debate
between William Tyndale and George Joye, that about the belief of the
Sadducees and its relevance to the translation of the word &vaa~aot~/
h v i o ~ q p ~ / i y e i pino the New Testament of George Joye.
In 1526 W i l h m Tyndale, the "Father of the English Bible", pub-
lished the first printed.~nglishNew Testament in Worms2. His achieve-
ment is all the more important because he was the first to have translated
the New Testament into English essentially from a Greek text3. Due to
the great demand for the translation, Tyndale's translation was reprinted
within a year in Antwerp4 by Christoffel van Endhoven, alias Rure-

1. The project is sponsored by the K.U. Leuven and co-ordinated by Prof. Dr. Guido
Latrk. It concentrates on the first Bibles in English, Dutch, and French, printed in
Antwerp during the aforementioned period. On the Antwerp origin of one of these Bibles,
the 1535 Coverdale Bible see, G. LATRE,The 1535 Coverdale Bible and Its Antwerp Ori-
gins, in 0. O'SULLNAN(ed.), The Bible as Book. The Reformation, London, British
Library & Newcastle, Oak Knoll Press, 2000, pp. 89-102.
2. The only complete copy of this New Testament has been discovered only recently
in Stuttgart; see M. JANEITA, Good Newsfrom Stuttgart. A Previously Unrecorded Copy
of William Tyndale's New Testament Translation, in Reformation 2 (1997) 1-5; E. ZWINK,
Detektivarbeit in der Landesbibliothek, Spektaklrliirer Bibelfund (Tyndale New Testament
1526), in Mitteilungen der DFG (1997), pp. 2-3 and 34-37; E. ZWINK,The Stuttgart Copy
of the 1526 New Testament in English, in Reformation 3 (1998) 29-48. An almost com-
plete copy (wanting only the title page) of the 1526 Worms edition can be found in the
British Library. The thud existing copy, missing 70 folios in all, is kept in the Library of
Saint Paul's Cathedral. The copy in the British Library (shelfmark: C.188.a.17.) was pub-
lished in a facsimile edition on the occasion of the 450"' anniversary of its original publi-
cation (London, Paradiie, 1976). An original spelling edition was published in 2000 by
the British Library for the Tyndale Society (edited by W.R. Cooper). For popular pur-
poses, a modem spelling edition was published by D. Daniel1 (New Haven, CT, Yale UP,
1989), now also available in paperback.
3. For his 1526 edition Tyndale used a Greek text that contained mainly readings from
the Byzantine B text, most probably the second andlor the third edition of Erasmus' edi-
tion(~)of the New Testament. Tyndale's other aids in his translation were Erasmus' Latin
translation published alongside the Greek text, Luther's New Testament translation (Sep-
tember Bibel), and the Vulgate.
4. [New Testament, Antwerp: Christoffel van Endhoven, 15261 (NK *0170). See
G. JOY[E] E. ARBER,(eds.), An Apology[ej Made by George Joy[@],to Satisfy, I f l t May
Be, W . Tindale, 1535 (The English Scholar's Library, 13), Birmingham, Arber, 1882,
P. 20. Quotations from the Apologye are taken from this reprint. See below n. 18.
mond5. After the first reprint was sold out, a second (c. 1531) and a third
(C. 1533) followed. Unfortunately, the textual distortions proliferated
with each edition because no native speaker could be found to make the
necessary corrections6. Therefore, van Endhoven's widow, Catharine,
who took over the business of her late husband, asked Tyndale repeat-
edly to correct his own translation for her next publication7. Since Tyn-
dale constantly refused her request, she turned to George Joye8, another

5. 0. DE S ~ TDe, Engelse natie te Antwerpen in de 16e eeuw (1496-1582),vol. 2,

Antwerp, De Sikkel, 1954, p. 606; C.C. BUTTERWORTH & A.G. CHESTER, George Joye
1495?-1553.A Chapter in the History of the English Bible and the English Reformation,
Philadelphia, PA, UPP, 1962, p. 147; cf. A.W. POLLARD, Records of the English Bible.
The Documents Relating to the Translation and Publication ofthe Bible in English, 1526-
1611, p. 7, n. 1.
6. JOYE,Apologye, p. 20.
7. Ibid.
8. The only existing biography on George Joye was written by Charles C. Butterworth
and Allan G. Chester and was published in 1962: BUT~ERWORTH & CHESTER, George
Joye 14957-1553, (see above n. 5). Butterworth also wrote on Joye's translations and
liturgical works: C.C. B ~ E R W O R TThe H , Literary Lineage of the King James Bible,
1340-1611 , Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1941; C.C. BUTTERWORTH,
The English Primers (1529-1545). Their Publication and Connection with the English
Bible and the Reformation in England, Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press,
1953. Recently Orlaith O'Sullivan and Rainer Pineas have published several articles on
Joye's works: 0. O ' S ~ L N A NThe, Bible Translations of George Joye, in O'SULLIVAN,
The Bible as Book (n. l ) ,pp. 25-38; 0. O'SULLNAN,The Authorship of The Supper of the
Lord, in Reformation 2 (1997) 207-232; R. PINEAS,Polemical Technique in Thomas
More's The answere to... the poysened booke, in C.M. MURPHY& H. GIBAUD(eds.),
Miscellanea Moreana: Essays for Germain Marc'hadour (Moreana, 26), Medieval and
Renaissance Texts and Studies, Binghamton, NY, 1989, pp. 385-393; R. F'INEAS, The
Answer to a Poisoned Book, in Renaissance Quarterly 40 (1987) 116-118; R. PINEAS.
George Joye: 'Exposicion of Daniel', in Renaissance Quarterly 28 (1975) 332-342;
R. PINEAS,George Joye's Use of Rhetoric and Logic as ~ e a ~ o n ~ . b f ~ e l i gContro-
ious
versy, in Essays in Literature 2 (1975) 10-23; R. PINEAS,Thomas More as an Anti-
Catholic Weapon in Protestant Polemics, in Morena 18, 70 (1981) 45-48. See also:
M. ANDEREGG, The Probable Author of The Souper of the Lorde: George Joye, in
Thomas MORE,The Answer to a Poisoned Book, edited by S.M. FOLEY& C. H. MILLER
(The Complete Works of St. Thomas More, 1l), New Haven & London, 1985, pp. 343-
374; W.A. CLEBSCH, More Evidence That George Joye Wrote the Souper of the Lorde, in
HTR 5511 (1962) 63-66; D. DANIELL, Tyndale, Roye. Joye, and Copyright (Tyndale's NT
Translation Pirated, Claimed, Corrupted by Others), in J.A.R. Dick & A. Richardson
(eds.), William Tyndale and the Law (Sixteenth Century Essays and Studies, 25),
Kirksville, MO, Sixteenth Century Journal, 1994, pp. 93-101; C. DAVIES,& J. FACEY, A
Reformation Dilemma: John Foxe and the Problem of Discipline, in JEH 39 (1988) 37-
65; G.E. DUFFIELD, First Psalter Printed in English (Bucer-Joye) Psalter, in Churchman
85 (1971) 291-293; G. HOBBS,Martin Bucer and the Englishing of the Psalms: Pseudo-
nymity in the Service of Early English Protestant Piety, in D.F. WRIGHT(ed.), Martin
Bucer: Reforming Church and Community, Cambridge, CUP, 1994, pp. 161-175;
J.F. MOZLEY, Tyndale's 'Supper of the Lord' in NQRW, 183, 11 (1942), pp. 305-306;
3.F. MOZLEY, Tyndale's 'Supper of the Lord' in NQRW, 18513 (1943) 87; J.F. MOZLEY,
The Supper of the Lord. 1533, in Morena 10 (1966). pp. 11-16; W.D.J.C. THOMPSON,
Who Wrote 'The Supper of the Lord'?, in HTR 5311 (1960) 77-91; H. W., The Supper of
the Lord, in NQRW 1.23, (1850) 362-363.
 TRANSLATLNG RESURRECTION 109

English exile in Antwerp, who had already published, among other reli-
gious worksg, his own tran~lation'~ of the Psalms (in three different ver-
sions)", as well as of the books of Isaiah12 and Jeremiah13. When realiz-
ing that Catharine van Endhoven would publish the book again anyway,
Joye finally consented to correct the text14.
Joye, however, who did not have sufficient knowledge of Greek (if he had
any at all) and worked on the basis of the Vulgate and Erasmus' Latin trans-
lation of the NT, went further than the mere correction of typographical
errors. He also made serious changes to the translation: beside introducing
variants from the Vulgate, he also translated the Latin word resurrectio in
twenty places by "the lyfe after this" or some similar expressions15. In all
of these places Tyndale's original translation read resurreccion. At the
other forty-five instances, where the Vulgate has resurrectio or another
form of the refurgo stem, Joye translated resurrectio and its cognates
with "resurreccion": to "ryse agayne", "rysing from deeth", and so on16.

9. E.g., G. JOYE,Ortulus anime. The garden of the soule: or the englisshe primers,
Argentine, Francis Foxe [Antwerp, Merten de Keyser], 1530 (STC 132828.4, NK 4246);
G. JOYE,The letters which Iohan Ashwel priour of Newnham Abbey besids Bedforde,
sente secretely to the Bishope of Lyncolne: in the yeare of our lord M.D.xxvii. Where in
the sayde priour accuseth George Ioye that tyme beinge felawe of Peter college in Cam-
bridge, of fower opinions: with the answer of the sayed George vn to the same opinions,
Straszburge [Antwerp, Merten de Keyser], 10 June 1531 (STC 845, NK 3281); G. Jom,
The subversion of Moris false foundation. Emdon, Jacoh Aurik [Antwerp, Gotfried van
der Haghen?], 1534 (STC 14829, NK 3282).
10. These translations were Joye's own translations from Latin. Joye used Zwingli's
Latin translation of the Hebrew text for the prophetical books. For the translation of the
Psalms, he made use of Martin Bucer's Latin translation for the 1531 edition and
Zwingli's Latin translation for the 1534 edition. (BUTIERWORTH, George Joye (n. 5), pas-
sim). Although Joye's Old Testament translations constitute the first translations ever in
print of those parts of the Bible, his name is very seldom mentioned in the histories of the
English Bible, and his merit is usually neglected.
11. JOYE,Ortulus anime (n. 9); G. JOYE,The Psalter of Dauid in Englishe purely
and faithfully translated afrir the texte of Feline [in some copies: ffeline]: euery P s a l m
hauynge his argument before, declarynge brefly thentente & substance of the who11
P s a l m , Argentine, Francis Foxe [Antwerp, Marten De Keyser], 16 January 1530 (STC
2370, NK 2476); G. JOYE,Davids Psalter1 diligently and faithfuily translated by George
Joyel with brief Arguments before euery Psalmel declaringe the effecte therof, [Antwerp],
Martyne Emperowr [De Keyser], 1534 (STC 2372, NK 2486).
12. G. JoYE, Theprophete Isaye, translated into englysshe, by George loye, Straszhurg,
Balthassar Beckenth [Antwerp, Merten De Keyser], 10 May 1531 (STC 2777, NK 2482).
13. G. JOYE,Ieremy the prophete, translated into Englisshe, by George Ioye,
[Antwerp, Merten De Keyser], May 1534 (STC 2778).
14. Apologye, p. 21.
15. Mt 22, 23.28.30.31; M k 12,18.23.25; Lk 14,14; 16,31; 20,27.33.35.36; Jn 5.29
(twice); Acts 23,6.8; 24,15.21; Heb 11,35.
16. Mt 26,32; 2733; Mk 6,14; Mk 9,9.10; 14,28; 16.14; Lk 2,34; Jn 2,22; 11,24.25;
Acts 1,22; 2,31; 4,2.33; 10,41; 17.18.32; Rom 1,4; 4,25; 6,5; 7,4; 8,34; 1 Cor
15,4.12.13.14.16.17.20.21.42;2 Cor 5,15; Phi1 3,10.11; Col 2,12; 1 Thes 4,14; 2 Tim
2,8.18; Heb 6,2; 1 Pet 1,3; 3,21; Rev 20,5.6.
 What were the reasons for Joye to change Tyndale's translation? Both
in his Epilogue to the second edition of the NT with his correctionsL7and
in his ApologyeL8he gives account of why he made these changes. His
line of reasoning is as follows: various scriptural passages, where the
Vulgate reads resurrectio (or one of its cognates), are incomprehensible
or illogical if the word is translated by "resurreccion" (meaning the bod-
ily resurrection). Joye argues that these places refer rather to the afterlife
in an intermediate state, i.e., the state of the soul between the moment of
death and the final resurrection at the end of time. Therefore, the Latin
word resurrectio (and its originals in the Greek)19must have at least two
different meanings: 1. the bodily resurrection; 2. the intermediate state
between death and resurrection.
Joye's argumentation is founded on his dualistic anthropology, which
corresponded to that of his times. According to that, "man consisteth of
two parts1 bodye and soule: of ye which one is sensible/heuey/& flessly :
and ye tother intellectuall/subtyle/and ~prltuall"~~. In other words, the
human person is made up of two distinct components: a physical body
and an incorporeal soul. At the moment of death the soul escapes from
the body and lives in an intermediary state as anima separata. The souls
of the righteous are already with God, but their full, final bliss will come
only at the end of time, when the general resurrection will take place:
when the dead bodies will be raised, and will join their souls.
With this view of the human person, Joye did not stand alone. In
fact, prior to Luther, this was held as a common belief in the sixteenth

17. W . T Y W E (transl.) & G. JOYE (ed.) [The New Testamengi%t\ntwerp,Catharyn

wydowe [of Christoffel van Endhoven], January 9, 1535. The sole known copy (wanting
the title page and the first few folios) is in the British Library (shelf number: C.36. hh.3).
18. G. JOYE, An apologye made by George Joye, to .sati.fi (if it maye he) W . Tindale:
to pourge and defende himsey ageinst so many sclaunderouse lyes fayned vpon him in
Tindals vncharitahle and snsoher Pystle so well worthy to be prefixed for the Reader to
induce him into the vnderstanding of hys new Testament diligently corrected and printed
in the yeare of oure lorde. M. CCCCC, and xuiiij. zn Nouember, Antwerp, [Cathrine van
Endhoven], Fehryary 27, 1535. See above n. 4.
19. The Latin resurrectio and its cognates translate in the Vulgate both the Greek
drvaoraa~g,or other forms of the 6 v i a q p t stem (e.g., in Mt 22,23.28.30.31; Mk
12,18.23.25; Lk 20,27.33.35.36; Acts 23,6.8; 24J5.21) and various forms of the Greek
stem G y ~ i p o(e.g., in Mt 11,5; Mk 6,14; Lk 9,22; 20,37). The concept being somewhat
foreign to the Greeks, bath drviruraa~g(drvia~qpt) and i y ~ i p oare seldom used in Clas-
sical Creek for rising from the dead, and in the LXX only in the later books (e.g., 2 Macc
7.14; 12,43). They are unreservedly used in the NT. C f . A. OEPKE,art. & v i a ~ q p Kl ,T ~ . ,
in TWNT 1 (1942) 368-372, and ID., art. &y~ipo, , TWNT 2 (1942) 332-337.
~ r h .in
20. G. JOYE, A frutefull tretis ojBaptysme and the Lordis Souper / ofthe vse and effect
uf them / of the worthey and vnworthy receyuers of the Souperlnecessary to be knowne of
all Christen men1 which verely receyue the Sacrament, Gmnning [Antwerp, Cathrien van
Endhoven?], 27 April 1541, folio Aij'.
century by Muslims, Jews and Christians alike2'. Even after the reforma-
tion, catholic^^^ and most of the Protestants (among whom Calvin and
Z ~ i n g l i ) 'shared
~ this conviction. Luther, however, in his early
called this position into question and maintained that the souls of the
departed die (thnetopsychisrn) or sleep @sychosomnolence) in an inac-
tive state (since Calvin's book on the subject, the two views have been
given the common name p ~ ~ c h o p a n n y c h i s mTyndalez6
)~~. and a good
friend of his, John Frithz7, another English Protestant exile living in
Antwerp, followed Luther's ideas, and denounced the Catholic teaching
about the dead. Already in 1531, in his commentary on the first Johannine
epistle, Tyndale asserted that while the Bible does proclaim the parousia
and the general resurrection at the end of time, it says nothing about the
fate of the souls departed:
-8.-
Another thmg'is this/ a1 the scripture makyth mention of the resurrection
and commyng agene of Christ: and that a1 men/ both they that go before/
and they that come after shal then receaue their rewardes to gether! and we
are commaundyd to loke euerye houre for that daye. And what is done with
the soules frome theyr departinge their bodies unto that daye / doethe the
scripture make no mention! saue only that they rest in the lorde and in their

21. G.H. WILLJAMS,The Radical Reformation (Sixteenth Century Essays & Studies,
15), Philadelphia, PA, Westminster, ('1962) '1992, p. M.
22. The question of the natural immortality of the soul was the only decided matter at
the abortive Fifth Lateran Council (1513, Eighth session Apostolici regiminis, DS 1440).
On the question see: S. O ~ L L I11, pensiero dimestrabilita razionale dell' immortalitci
dell' anima umana, in Studia Patavina 1 (1954) 7-40; G. DI NAPOLI,L'immortalitci dell'
anima nel Rinascimento, Torino, Societi editrice intemazionale, 1963.
23. "Catabaptistq docent mortuos dormire et corpore et animis usque in diem iudicii;
propterea quod dormiendi verbo ignorant Hebrqos pro moriendi verbo uti". H. ZWINOLI,
Samtliche Werke, edited by E. EGLI et al. (Corpus Reformatorurn, 93; HZSW 6.1),
Zurich, Berichthaus, 1961, pp. 188-189.
24. E.g. in his Fastenpostille: D. Martin Luthers Werke: kritische Gesamtausgabe,
Weimar, Bohlau, 1853, B. 17:2, p. 235; see also B. 37, p.151. Luther later relapsed occa-
sionally into his inherited Catholic view on the fate of the soul after death, which resulted
in the gradual replacement of the doctrine on psychosomnolence by that on the natural
immortality of the soul. See P. ALTHAUS,Die letzten Dinge. Lehrbuch der Eschatologie,
Gutersloh, Bertelsmann, 1956, pp. 146-147.
25. J. CALVIN, Psychopannychia, ed. W. ZIMMERLI, Leipzig, 1932, p. 35.
26. See e.g. W. TYNDALE, Exposition of the fyrste epistle of seynt Jhon, Merten De
Keyser, Antwerp, 1531, folio Eiii'; W. TYNDALE, An answere unto sir Thomas Mores
Dialoge, ed. A.M. O'DONNELL(The Independent Works of William Tyndale, 3), Wash-
ington DC, Catholic University of America Press, 2000, pp. 117-118; and his second Pro-
logue to the second edition of his NT: Willyam Tindale / yet once more to the christen
reader, in W. TYNDALE (transl.), The newe Testament 1 dylygently corrected and com-
pared with the Greke by Willyam Tindale: andfinesshed in the yere of oure Lorde God.
A. M.D. &xwiiii.in the moneth of Nouember, Anwerp, Marten Emperor [De Keyser],
November 1534 (STC 2826, NK 2487).
27. J. FRITH, A disputation of Purgatorye made by Jhon Frith which is deuided in to
thre bokes, Antwerp, Symon Cock, 1531 (NK 3043).
 faith. Wherfore he that determyneth ought of the state of them that be
departed/ doeth but teach the presumptouse imaginations of his awne
brayne: Nether can his doctrine be any article of our faith. What God doeth
with them is a secret laide in the treasury of God. And we ought to be
patient/ beinge certified of the scripture that they which die in the faith are
at rest/ ought no moare to serche that secret/ then to serche the houre of the
resurreccion which God hath putt only in his awne powerZK.
Tyndale, therefore, denied that the souls departed "be all readie in the
full glorie that Christ is in / or the elect angels of god are inwz9."For if
it so were", Tyndale explains, "then the preachinge of the resurreccion
of the flesshe were a thinge in ~ a y n e " ' ~Tyndale,
. as Joye points out,
also believed that the teaching about the immortality of the soul was not
(yet) held by the Jews: "this doctrine was not then in the worldeW3'.
With this argument, Tyndale anticipated one of the most common argu-
ments of nineteenth and twentieth century exegesis on the subject.
But let us return to Joye's alterations in the New Testament transla-
tion of Tyndale. It is remarkable that three quarters of all those instances
where Joye changed Tyndale's translation of resurreccion refer to the
belief denied by the Sadducees. Twelve can be found in Jesus' discus-
sion with the Sadducees in the Synoptics (Mk 12,18-25 and par.), and
four in the account of the Acts of the Apostles (23,6-11) about Paul set-
ting up the Sadducees against the Pharisees in the Council. Both in the
Synoptic passages and in the passage in Acts, it is said that the Sad-
ducees denied the belief in the resurrectio. It will come then as no sur-
prise that Joye's foremost arguments for his changes come from the exe-
gesis of the texts about the Sadducees.
Very little is known about the S a d d ~ c e e s ~ ~ . ' T h e ~ .records
~ n l y are
found in the writings of their opponents: in the New Testament, in the

28. TYNDALE, Exposirion (n. 26), folio Eiii'.

29. TYNDALE, The newe Testament (n. 26), **if.
30. Ibid.
31. JOYE, Apologye (n. 4), p. 7. Joye gives here a fairly precise quotation from Tyn-
dale's Answere unto sir Thomas Mores' Dialoge, where Tyndale writes: "[More] steleth
awaye Christes argument where with he proueth the resurreccion I that Abraham and all
saintes shuld rise againe & not that their soules were in heuen which doctrine was not yet
in the worlde". TYNDALE, Amwere (n. 26), p. 117.
32. The origin of the name Sadducees @ a & & o u ~ a ~ino Mishnaic
t, Hebrew 0 ~ i ) l l Y )is
uncertain. Some believe that their lineage dates back to the high priest Zadok, of the line
of Eleazer, during the times of Ahimelech and Abiathar (2 Sam 8.15-17; 15,24.35; 17,15;
19,ll). He was made high priest by King Solomon (1 Kgs 2,26.27.35), and his line
extends to Onias LD (ca. 175 BC). Others, following Jerome, derive it from the Hebrew
a9i)'ix (righteous): Sadducaei autem quod interpretantur iusti (Comrn. in Mattheurn 111.
23, SC, 259, Paris, Cerf, 1979, p. 154). The Sadducees formed the religious and political
elite of the first-century Palestinian society. They dominated the high court at Jerusalem
and the Sanhedrin. As members of the high-priestly families, many Sadducees were in
 TRANSLA~NGRESURRECTION 113

works of Flavius Josephus (who according to some was himself born a

Sadducee, but later renounced his connection with t h e d 3 ) , and a few
scattered rabbinical texts34.Joye obviously had knowledge of these texts.
So, for example, Joye tells us that the Sadducees accepted only the Torah
as authoritative: "The Saduceis wold apere to kepe no other obseruacions
besyde the law of Moses"35. Furthermore, he informs us that they
believed in the free will of the human person and rejected predestination,
even the possibility for God to see into the future:
these [the Sadducees] gaue nothing to fortune and destinyel but to the free
lybertye thei attributed althinges. For thei threw althings subiecte vnder
owr own powerlaknowleginge owr own selues to be the authors of good
wo~kes'~.

i
!
charge of the Temple and its activities. Both of the other two main religious movements
of the time, the P&&S and the Essenes, disapproved of the Sadducees. For literature on
the Sadducees, see E. B ~ M E LSadduzaer
, und Sadokiden, in ETL 55 (1979) 107-115;
1 G. BAUMBACH, The Sadducees in Josephus, in L.H. FELDMAN & G. HATA(eds.), Jose-
phus, the Bible, and History, Leiden, Brill, 1989, pp. 173-195; S.J.D. COHEN,The Politi-
i
cal and Social History of the Jews in Greco-Roman Antiquity: The State of the Question,
I in R.A. KRAm & G.W.E. NICKELSBURG (eds.), Early Judoism and its Modern Inter-
i prefers, Atlanta, GA, Scholars Press, 1986, pp. 33-56; L.L. GRABBE, Judaism from Cyrus
i to Hadrian, vol. 2: The Roman Period, Mimeapolis, MN, Fortress, 1992, pp. 463ff.;
G. HOLSCHER, Der Sadduzaismus: eine kritische Untersuchung zur spoteren jiidischen
Religionsgeschichte, Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1906; J. LE MOYNE,Les Sadduckens (EBib),
Paris, 1972; S. MASON,Josephus and the New Testamerrt, Peabody, MA, Hendrickson,
1992; H. M ~ L DDe~ Sadduceeen:
, deconfessionalisering in bijbelse tijden (Zicht op de
Bijhel, 2), Amsterdam, Buijten en Schipperheijn, 1973; G.W.E. NICKELSBURG, Resurrec-
tion, Immortality and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism, Cambridge, M A , HUP,
1972; A.J. SALDARINI, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society. A Socio-
logical Approach, Edinburgh, Clark, 1988; G.G. PORTON,Diversity in Postbiblical
Judaism, in R.A. KRAFT& G.W.E. NICKELSBURG (eds.), Early Judaism, 1986, pp. 57-80;
G. STEMBERGER, Pharisaer, Sadduzaer, Essener (SBS, 144), Stuttgart, Katholisches
Bibelwerk, 1991; J. WELLHAUSEN, Die Pharisaer und die Sadducaer: eine Untersuchung
zur inneren jiidischen Geschichte, Gottingen, Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, '1967.
I 33. BJ 2.119, 164-166; Ant 13.171-73, 293-298; 18.11; 16-17; 20.199; Vit. 10-11.
See E. MAIN,The Sadducees as Considered By Josephus. A Textual Analysis and Criti-
cal-Study of His Terminology, Political-History and Apologetical Bias, in RB 97 (1990)
161-206.
34. For the rabbinic texts about Sadducees see E. SCHURER, Geschichte des jiidischen
Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, Leipzig, H i ~ c h s 41910-11,
, 11, pp. 452-454 and 475-
489. - It has been claimed that the origins of the Qumran community are also to be found
in the Sadducean party. See E.E. ELLIS,Jesus, the Sodducees and Qumran, in NTS 10
(1964) 274-279; J. RUBENSTEIN, The Sadducees and the Water-Libation. Methodological
Analyses of Qumranic and Rabbinic Texts Regarding the Legitimacy of Oral-Law, in JQR
84 (1994) 417-444; L.H. SCHIFFMAN, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, Philadelphia-
Jerusalem, The Jewish Publication Society, 1994, p. 88; J.C. VANDERKAM, The People of
the Dead Sea Scrolls: Essenes or Sadducees?, in BibRev 7 (1991) 42-47.
35. G. JOYE,The vnite and Scisme of the olde Chirche, S. n. n. 1. [Antwerp, Catharine
van Endhoven?] June 1543, folio v'.
36. Ibid. Joye's aim is evidently to draw a parallel between the Catholic teaching and
that of the Sadducees.
 He also points out the persistent hostility between the Pharisees and
the Sadducees: "thei [i.e.,the Sadducees] [were] estiemed of the pharisais
as men most vile and vnpureland thus was there perpetual1 shyfe betwixte
them both"37.
More relevant for our matter is the Sadducees' standpoint vis-a-vis the
dead and the hereafter. Here Joye explicitly refers to Josephus' testi-
mony about the S a d d u c e e ~He
~ ~ explains
. that Josephus never mentioned
that the Sadducees would deny the bodily resurrection. What they denied
was the immortality of the soul, i.e., the survival of the soul after death:
"The SadduceisJ as wryteth that aunciaunt historiograph Josephus
beinge himself a iew/ in his. xviij. boke. the ij. ca. sayd that the soule of
man was mortal and dyed with the b ~ d i e " The~ ~ . reference and the quo-
tation are correct? Josephus, indeed, does not mention the bodily res-
urrection and speaks only of the immortality of the soul4'.

37. Ibid.
38. Only fourteen years after the Gutenberg Bible, on 28 June and 23 August 1470 of
Augsburg, Johann Schiissler published the editiones principes of the Latin translations of
Josephus' Antiquilates Judizicae and De bello Jlulaico.
39. Apologye, p. 6.
40. ZaSSouuaiot~SZ T ~ yG u ~ &6<h o y o ~o v v a ~ a v i j s tTOTS cshpacs~:"The Sad-
ducees hold that the soul perishes along with the body" (ed. L.H.FELDMAN, LCL, 1965,
pp. 12-13). - Joye is surprisingly precise in his quotations and often gives accurate page
numbers ("lief" and "syde"). Characteristic of his meticulous scholarship is the story
about the quotation from Augustine that John Frith used in his treatise against the bodily
presence of Christ in the Eucharist (A Christian sentence and true iudgment of the most
honorable Sacrament of Christes body and bloud declared both by auctorite of the holy
Scriptures and the auncient Doctores, Richard Wyer, s.1. n.d., STC 5190). The sentence
was often cited in the Middle Ages in a corrupt version: ("Corpus domini in quo resur-
rexit uno loco esse oportet"). Cf. W.M. CORDON, A Needle ih a Meadow: A Missing Ref-
erence in the More-Frith Confroversy, in Morena 13 (1976), pp. T9and 22, n. 5. Frith,
relying on a secondary source, quotes it in a very similar form: "Corpus in quo resurrexit
in uno loco esse oporteth" (f. Aiiiiv). While both Frith and Tyndale engage in debate with
Thomas More on the meaning of oportet, Joye points out that some of the copies read
"Corpus enim Domini in quo resunexit/ uno loco esse potest". G. JOYE,The souper of the
Lorde: wher vnto, that thou mayst be the better prepared and suerlyer enstructed: h u e
here firste the declaration of the later parte of the.6. ca. of S . Johan, beginninge at the
letter C . the fowerth lyne before the crosse, at these w o ~ d i s :merely were. &c wheryn
incidently M. Moris letter ogenst Johan Frythe is confuted Nornburg: Niclas twonson
[Antwerp], 5 April 1533, STCZ24468. This is precisely the formulation as it is found in
Augustine: "Corpus enim Domini in quo resurrexit, uno loco esse potest; uerita euis
ubique diffusa est" (Tract. in loh. Ev., XXX, 1 , CC SL, 36, 1954, p. 289).
41. In BJ 2,164-165 Josephus gives other details about the belief of the Sadducees:
CaSSouuaiot SS, TO SE~TEPOV raypa, [...l y u ~ iTEj ~TI']v Stapovqv uai rag ua9' a6ou
~ ~ p a p~i aastphq
~i &vatpo5crtv: "As for the persistence of the soul after death, penal-
ties in the underworld, and rewards, the Sadducees, the second of the orders, will have
none of them" (ed. Thackeray LCL, 1967, pp. 386-387). The word order in the transla-
tion is slightly adapted for the quotation. Joye refers to both places, as well as to Pliny:
"Plinys boke of the natural storyes ca.xvij. and Josepus in his.xviij. boke of the antiquites
ca. ij. and in his boke of the Jewes batail cap.vijW(The vnite and Scisme, f. vi').
 TRANSLATING RESL~RRECTION 115

This statement of Josephus, Joye argues, concurs with the evidence

one finds in the NT. In the episode in the Acts of the Apostles about
Paul before the Council, Luke tells us that the Sadducees hold that there
is no resurrectio; nor spirits or angels, but that the Pharisees acknowl-
edge them both: Sadducaei enim dicunt non esse resurrectionem neque
angelurn neque spiritum Pharisaei autem utraque confitentur (23,8)42.
Now, if the word resurrectio (or its Greek original &vacr~acn<) referred
to the bodily resurrection, Joye maintains, and it constituted a separate
item in the list denied by the Sadducees, the author could not possibly
have said that the Pharisees believed in both but rather in all three of
them. But the Latin utraque (and the Greek z a &pcpoz&pa),just like the
English both, refers to two items only43.Therefore, the expression "spir-
its and angels" in 23,8 can only be seen as an apposition to the term res-
urrectzo. The Text could then be paraphrased as follows: the Sadducees
say that there is no life beyond this earthly life; there are neither spirits
(that is the souls of the departed between their death and the resurrec-
tion) nor angels44.
It is noteworthy that comparable positions have recently been formu-
lated by several scho1a1-s45.D. Daube, for instance, argues that there is

42. Joye quotes the text from Erasmus' Latin NT Translation (with utraque). The Vul-
gate has utrumque.
43. The use of 8pqcpb~apaas referring to three items is said to be within the scope of
admissible grammar by F.J.F. JACKSON & K. LAKE,The Beginnings of Christianity, Part
I : K . LAKE& H.J.CADBLRY,The Acts of the Aposfles, vol. 4, London, Macmillan, 1933,
p. 289; F.F. BRUCE,The Acts of the Apostles, London, Tyndale, 1951, pp. 411-412;
E. HAENCHEN, Die Apostelgeschichte, ettingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 151968,638-
639; H. CONZELMANN, Die Apostolgeschichte (HNT, 7 ) , Tiibingen, Mohr, 1972, p. 138.
44. "Paul confirming the same to be their opinion/ addeth that thei said ther were
nether spirits nor angels: so that to saye there is nether spirit/ (spirit properly is the soule
departed) nor aungell is as miche to saye as the soule is mortall/ and no lyfe to be aftir
this: and the Saduceis in denying the lyfe aftir this/ denied by the same denye but onely
those two: that is bothe spirit and angell: for if they had denyed by that worde Resurrec-
tio the general1 Resurrection to in that place1 so had the1 denied thre distincte thingis; but
Paule addyng/Pharisei autem vfraque conjitenturl but the pharises graunt them both two/
declareth manifestly that thei denyed but onely two thingis that is to saye bothe spirit and
angell: for aftir this present lyfe tyl domes daye there is no lyfe of eny creature but spir-
its and aungels. And if by this worde Resurrectio Paul had vnderstonden as T. [Tyndale]
doth the resurrection of the flesshei he wolde not haue saydi the phareyses graunt them
bathe/ but all t h e . For this word vtraque as every latyne man knowethi is spoken but of
two thingis only: but as for this mynde I leaue it vnto the iugement of the lerned" (Apol-
w e , pp. 6-7).
45. See D. DAUBE,On Acts 23: Sadducees and Angels, in JBL 109 (1990) 493-497.
B.T. VMANO& J. TAYLOR, Sadducees, Angels, And Resurrection (Acts 23.8-9): An Inter-
pretation and Understanding of Jewish Ideas about Life afer Death in the First Century,
in JBL 111 (1992), pp. 496-498. A similar position is held by S.T. LACHS,The Pharisees
and Sadducees on Angels. A Reexaminafion of Acts 23,8, in (Graz College Annual of
Jewish Studies 6), Philadelphia, Graz College, 1977, pp. 35-42; M,-E. BOISMARD &
no evidence that the Sadducees would have denied the existence of the
angels. The Torah, the only authoritative scripture for the Sadducees, often
mentions angels. Furthermore, the Greek &p(p6~eparefers to two ele-
ments and not to three. Therefore, angel (iEyyehoq) and spirit (nvei5pa)
must mean the same. They both refer to the intermediate (interim) state
of the souls between the death of the body and the final resurrection.
The two synonyms constitute together the second element in the list with
resurrection ("angel" in apposition to "spirit"). Hence the use of cipcpo-
zzpu. His paraphrase of the verse would be: The Sadducees say that
there is neither resurrection, nor intermediate state (i.e. spirit or angel of
the dead).
Viviano and Taylor agree with Daube that what the Sadducees deny
consists of two distinct ideas only, 13pcpbzepa referring only to two
items. They argue, however, that spirits and angels are not synonyms but
stand in apposition to &vClazao~v(the two pflzz clauses). The sense
would be very similar to what Joye had proposed (whom they do not
mention): the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, either in the
form of an "angel" or in the form of a "spirit". Viviano and Taylor hold
that only the second term (nvei5pa) refers to the departed souls (thus
reflecting a dualistic anthropology), while i E y y ~ h orefers
~ to the dead in
a monistic anthropology, according to which the deceased become like
angels, and "as such they have bodies that are endowed with various
supernatural powers but are also visible and even palpable"46. Their
reading of the text is then: While both ideas are said to be held by the
Pharisees, the Sadducees denied both possibilities: the bodily resurrec-
tion as well as the immortality of the soul.
Joye then turns to Christ's encounter with the Sidd~ceesin the Syn-
optics. He recapitulates the story put to Jesus about the seven brothers
who died one after the other, leaving the wife to the next brother with-
out an heir. In his answer, Jesus mentions "the power of God". Joye
understands this to be the power to give life to the dead and he refers
to Jn 5 and 12, and to 1 Jn 547.This is often found also in modern com-
mentaries. Jesus then explains that in the resurrectio (Mt 22,30 Ev z i

A. LAMOUILLE, Les Actes des dear ApGtres, & ~ i bN.S., 12-14), Paris, Gabalda, 1990,
vol. 2, p. 330; LE MOYNE,Les Sadduciens, 1972, pp. 131-134. See also G. SCHNEIDER,
Die Apostolgeschichte (HTKNT, 5/2), Freiburg, Herder, 1982, p. 33 nn. 42-43. E. M m ,
Les sadduciens et la risurrection des morts: Comparaison entre MC 12,18-27 et Lc
20,27-38, in RE 103 (1996) 41 1-432, pp. 424-425 and 430.
46. V m o & TAYLOR, Sadducees (n. 45), p. 497.
47. "thei erred being ignorant of the scriptures and also of the power of god/ whiche
p o w christe declareth to consist in the preseming the dead a lyue" (Apologye, p. 7).
 TRANSLATING RESLRRECTION 117

) , the dead resuscitantur (Mk 12,25 Btav EK V E K P ~ V

d v a c s t a o ~ ~when
hvaothotv; Joye: "are reuiued or resu~cited"~~), they neither many nor
are given in marriage but are like angels (Mt and Mk i E y y ~ h o t ~in~ )
heaven and are sons of God (Lk). Joye points out that Jesus formulates
his answer in the present tense: "christe in describing their present state/
saith in the present tence. Thei mary not nor ar maryedl but ar lyke aun-
gelsm5". Furthermore, Joye asks, when are the deceased more like
angels: 1) when they are still bodiless, incorporal, purely intellectual
souls, or 2) when after the resurrection they will already have joined
their bodies? Undoubtedly, he says, they are much more like angels in
their bodiless state, i.e., in the intermediate state, because angels do not
have bodies5'.
To prove the veracity of the resurrectio, Jesus then quotes Exod
3,6.15f ("I amthe God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of
Jacob") and adds, "He is God not of the dead but of the livingns2.What
is surprising here, Joye says, is that this argument is totally pointless if
the question is about the general resurrection at the end of the world. For
Jesus' addition ("He is God not of the dead but the living") refers to the

48. Apologye, p. 8. It is noteworthy that for Mk 12,26 Joye uses Erasmus' Latin trans-
lation (E). For the Greek a s p i 6 i ~ 6 VvE K P ~ VBTLE y ~ i p o v ~ athe
t , Vulgate (Vg) reads
"de mortuis autem quod resurgant". Erasmus appears to have been discontented with the
translation of the passive present indicative of the intransitive Eysipov~alby the active
present subjunctive resurgant. He uses instead the passive present indicative resuscitan-
tur in order to set it in contrast with the verb d v a a ~ 6 a t v(E, Vg: resurrexerint) of the
previous verse. Matthew changes the clause into a nominal construction: nepi 6k T ~ S
dvaa~aaew< T ~ vstcpkv
V (E de resurrectione vero (Vg autem) mortuorum). Luke also
changes Mark's somewhat awkward construction but keeps the verb in the passive pre-
sent indicative: Srt 6k E y e i p o v ~ ao~l v e ~ p o i Here,
. however, Erasmus keeps the Vul-
gate's reading: "quia (E: quod) vero resurgant mortui". Tyndale translates the clause
both in Mark and in Luke with the future tense: "that the deed shall ryse agayne".
49. Both in Matthew and Mark, some mss. read (ot) 8yy e h o (~~ 0 6 3) ~ 0 6Luke . again
uses a different expression, but the meaning remains nearly the same: Icrayysho~yap
EI~LV . MAIN,Les sadduciens (n. 44), pp. 424-425.
See
50. Apologye, p. 7 .
51. "I aske [...l whether that the children of the lyfe and worthy that worlde (as Luke
calleth them) be not now more lyke aungels then they shalbe aftii the resurrection of their
bodies? me thinketh that in thys poyntl that they nether marye nor are maryed: aungels
and the spirits be now bothe a lyke: and the chyldren of the lyfe or the worlde where now
the blessed lyue with Christel are now more lyke aungels then they shalbe aftii the resur-
rection of their bodyesl for now they ar substances incorporal/immoaalVand intellectuaV
and so be aungels: but then they shalbe bodely substances hauyng vely flesshe and bones
which the aungels neuer had nor neuer shall haue" (Apologye, p. 8).
52. "De resurrectione vero m o r t u o r d non legistis quod vobis dictum est a deo qui
ait.Ego sum deus Abraham &c. That is to saye. As concernyng the lyfe of them that be
dead haue ye not red what is tolde you of god saying: I am the God of Abrahamt the god
of Isaac and the god of Jacob: God is not the God of the deadet but of the lyuinge" (Apol-
Ogye, p. 8).
present relationship of the Patriarchs with God: they are not dead figures
of the past but are alive and present. Furthermore, if the dead slept in an
indifferent, insensible and unconscious state until the general resurrec-
tion at the end of the world, as Tyndale maintained, then God could not
possibly be called "God of the living" but "God of the sleeping who
will be living".
That there is a logical problem in Jesus' answer was already noticed
by Jerome. In his Commentary to Matthew, he raises the question what
Jesus' intention was in using this ambiguous citation:
Quaeritur itaque quid sibi uoluerit Dominus hoc proferre testimonium quod
uidetur ambiguum uel non satis ad resurrectionis pertinens ueritatem: Ego
sum Deus Abraham et Deus Isaac et Deus lacob, et, quasi hoc prolato
probauerit quod uolebat, statim intulerit: Non est Deus rnorluorum sed
uiuentium (111.31.32).
Jerome rightly remarks that although there are better texts in the
Scriptures that prove the veracity of the resurrection (he quotes Isa 26,19
and Deut 12,2),it would have been unwise (stultum) if Jesus had quoted
them, since they are not found in the five books of Moses which the
Sadducees held exclusively to be authoritative. Therefore Jesus proves
the immortality of the soul on the basis of a citation from Exodus,
Jerome explains, and from the immortality of the souls the bodily resur-
rection should Calvin, too, finds a similar solution to the prob-
lem: "Quum vero tradit Scriptura, ex spe resurrectionis pendere spiri-
tualem vitam, et animas a corporibus solutas illuc respicere, quisquis
resurrectionem convellit, animas quoque immortalitate ~poliat"*~. In other
.. necessarily pre-
words, the immortality of the soul and the resurrection
suppose each other. Therefore, proving irnrnortality*phves resurrection
at the same time.
For Joye, this last step in the argumentation is unnecessary because
the word resurrectio refers to the intermediate state. By proving the
immortality of the soul, Jesus has already answered the question of the
Sadducees:
By this argument: god is the god of the lyuing and not of the dead: God is
the god of Abrhaam Isaac and Jacob ergo Abraham Isaac and Jacob are a

53. "Porro ad aetemitatem animarum probandam de Moyse ponit exemplum: Ego

sum Deus Abraham et Deus Isaac et Deus lacob, statimque infert: Non est Deus mortuo-
rum sed uiuentium, ut cum probauerit animas permanere post mortem, neque enim poterat
fieri ut eorum esset Deus qui nequaquam subsisterent, consequenter introduceretur et cor-
porum resurrectio quae cum animabus bona malaue gessemnt" (Comm, in Matfheum 111.
31.32).
54. J. CALVIN, In harmoniam ex Matthaeo, Marco et Luca compositam commentarii,
vol. 2, ed. A.F. THOLUCK, Berlin, Thome, 1838, p. 223.
 TRANSLATING R E S U R R E ~ O N 119

lyue: christe concludeth planelyl nothing els but that there is a lyfe aftir
this whereyn the soulis departed lyue/ whiche conclusion sith it is directly
made ageynst the Saduces opinion/ it must nedis folow that thei denyed i n
this place that thinge which christe p r ~ u e d ~ ~ .

In other words, if Jesus proved the immortality of the soul, then this
must have been the assertion which was called into question by the
Sadducees at this point. Otherwise the Sadducees would not have been
silenced by Jesus' answer: "If the Saduces here had denyed cheifely [sic]
and principally1 by that worde Resurrectio the general resurrection" Joye
argues, then "they myght haue well obiected saying: Syr what is this
answere to our question? Joye sees an additional reinforcement of his
argument in the final clause of Jesus' answer, found only in the gospel of
Luke: omnes enim illi vivunG7 ( R ~ v z &y<a p <holv). They (mean-
ing the dead) dl,li_ve (and do not sleep) "in him," or "by hymn. Joye
then sums up his argiimentation with the conclusion: "the latyn worde
[Resurrectio] / besidis that it signifieth in other places the Resurrection of
the bodye/ yet in these it sygnifieth the lyfe of the spirits or soulis departed
as chnstis answere vnto the Saduceisl and John [Rev 201 declaren5*.
Joye's argumentation, at least partly, is found in several recent studies
too. C.F. Evans, for example, argues in a very similar way59. Others,

55. Apologye, p. 8.
56. Ibid.
57. This is again the text of Erasmus' Latin NT translation; the Vulgate reads omnes
enim vivunt ei. (Apologye, p. 9 ) .
58. Apologye, p. 10.
59. C.F. EVANS,Resurrection and the New Testament, (SBT, II/12), London, SCM,
1970, p. 32: "[ ...l as evidence that [...l the patriarchs are not past and dead figures but
are present and alive; their continuance lies in his [God's] permanent existence and in
their permanent existence in relation to him. This, however, is not a proof of resurrection
in general, but rather the opposite. It says of certain special persons, to whom could be
added from Jewish tradition such other special figures as Elijah, Enoch and Moses him-
self, that they are in some sense alive with God apart from and without resurrection".
Compare S.E. JOHNSON, A Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Mark (BNTC),
London, Black, 1960, p. 201: "the conditions of the future life cannot be compared to
man's life on earth [. . .] God speaks of himself as the God of Abraham.. . and Isaac. .. and
Jacob as though they are living and he is their God; therefore they must be alive".
J. ALONSO,Evangelio de San Marcos (BAC, 207), Madrid, 1961, p. 461 argues for the
contrary "El lenguaje usado alli no implica necesariamente que ellos [los patriarcas]
vivan. Quiere decir que [Dios] estuvo en relaci6n con ellos alg6n tiempo". This remark,
however true it might be for the OT citation, undermines Jesus' argument in the way he
(or the Evangelist) wanted to use it. Emmanuelle Main differentiates between Mark's
account and that of Luke: "La risponse de Jesus, d'aprks Lc, est extremement pricise et
cohirente: il maintient l'assurance de la rksurrection de la chair, mais dans l'autre monde,
le corps n'a pas pour objet le fait de se reproduire car la mort n'existe plus. A l'inverse,
la response de Jesus, d'aprb MC, outre qu'elle n'est pas argumentee, est ambigue et pour-
rait ne correspondre qu'g une vague affirmation de I'immortalitk de l ' h e " (Les saddu-
chens, p. 425).
without noticing it, blur the difference between the intermediate state
and the final resurrection. A typical example is C.S. Mann, who persis-
tently uses the term "resurrection-life"60. One also encounters the argu-
ment put forward by William Tyndale6'. E. Earle E l l i ~ for ~ ~ instance,
,
writes that Jesus' answer to the Sadducees cannot be interpreted in terms
of immortality because it would defeat the exact point Jesus wanted to
prove. "If Abraham is now personally 'living', no resurrection would be
necessary for God to be 'his God"'63. TO refute Ellis' argumentation,
Joseph A. Fitzmyer points out that Ellis' position "reduces Jesus' dou-
ble answer to one"64 and would leave out of consideration that "'they
are all alive' to God"65. Fitzrnyer is more willing to accept the interpre-
tation which he calls the traditional one, in fact the one that was also
proposed by Joye: "The patriarchs, though having died, live indeed;
they are immortal"66. Fitzmyer is aware of the fact that this view has
been said to be based on a dualistic anthropology, the dichotomy of
body and soul, which was allegedly foreign to the Jewish teaching.
Nonetheless, he believes that among the Palestinian Jews of the first
century AD, the belief in the resurrection of the dead had already, under
Hellenistic influences, developed in terms of immortality. Just like Joye,
he takes the Lukan addition in 20,38b ( n k v z ~ ~ afiz@r6otv) as a
ybp
clear reference to immortality6'. In fact, Fitzmyer goes so far as to
explain: "in the resurrection from the dead" (Lk 20,35) with the expres-
sion "those raised to 'everlasting life"'68. Similarly, he elucidates the

60. C.S. MANN,Mark. A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB,
27), New York, Doubleday, 1986, pp. 474-475: "The question as to the extent of belief
in a resurrection-life in first-century Judaism is a vexed o n e , and depends to a large
degree on a belief in the universality (or otherwise) of a resurrecti&i-life among groups
who acknowledged such a life. The Samaritans, along with the Sadducees, denied a res-
urrection. [...l As has been noted before, confident assertions about the extent and nature
of belief in a resurrection-life in this period are to be avoided. However, the Sadducees'
skepticism about such life depended on the fact that life after death finds expression in the
Old Testament only in the later, post-exilic books: cf. Dan 12.2; Isa 25,8.26; 26,19; PS
73,24, and (possibly) Job 19,25-27; How much this belief in life after death belongs to
Persian exilic influence is difficult to say, but the older belief centered on a kind of half-
life of a very vague kind in Sheol, a place of darkness and inactivity (Cf. Isa 14,lO; Job
7,9-11; PS 6,5; 115,17; Sir 17,27)".
61. See above, on p. 112.
62. E.E. ELLIS,The Gospel of Luke (Century Bible), London, Nelson, 1966, p. 235.
63. Ibid.
64. J.A. FTTZMYER, The Gospel According to Luke: Introduction, Translation, and
Notes, vol. 2, Garden City, NY, Doubleday, 1985, p. 1301.
65. Ibid.
66. Ibid.
67. Fitzmyer takes it as "an allusion to 4 Macc 7, 19, which itself implies immortal-
ity" (p. 1301: see also pp. 1306-1307).
68. Ibid., p. 1305.
 TRANSLATING RESURRECTION 121

clause "they are like angels" (Lk 20,36) with "disembodied spirits who
do not marry"69.
Regardless of the question whether Joye was right or not, we can con-
clude with the following observations. Joye was a thorough scholar and
used his sources responsibly. He made use of all the available material
on his subject. He studied the New Testament references very carefully,
and in his Apologye he exhibits his acquaintance with Josephus' Anti-
quitates J u d a i c ~as well as some of the available Hebrew materia170. His
exegetical methodology is surprisingly modem. In fact, as we tried to
point out, the debate between Joye and Tyndale about the belief of the
Sadducees contains many elements that are also found in more recent
studies. Of course, one has to be very careful not to read modem ideas
into a sixteenth-century debate, but the parallels are considerable.
Joye's exeg-al scholarship sheds light on the corrections he made
in Tyndale's New ~kstament.As a theologian and biblical scholar he
participated in laying the foundations of a new protestant biblical theol-
ogy. Regrettably, his personal conflict with Tyndale and later his falling-
out with Foxe led scholars to discredit him. Our study shows that the
case is not ~ n a m b i g u o u s ~ ~ .

Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Gergely Jmhsz

Faculty of Arts: English Literature
Blijde Inkomststraat 21
B-3000 Leuven

69. Ibid.
70. He refers to the teachings of Rabbi Kimhy (Apologye, p. 1l), and speaks about the
various translations of the Hebrew Oli, (of which the usual Latin equivalent is the verb
surgo, the radix of the noun resurrectio): "the hebrew worde which commonly is trans-
lated into this verbe Surgo / the same some tyme saynt Jerome translated into Maneo as
in Isaye [...] some tyme into theise verbis sto or consto I as Isaye xlvj. And some tyme
into theis verbis Ponol conrrituol excitol facio stare in vital vel seruo in vito as in exo.
cap. ix. of Pharao" @. 10).
71. The author wishes to thank Dr. Paul Arblaster and Prof. Dr. Guido La&&for their
co-operation in redacting this essay.