Adding GTh: Cleaning Up, pt. 2

We have three sayings to discuss: In the uniquely-Matthean tradition, there are a couple of logia I didn't notice the first time around: 40 and 75.  Then, in the uniquely-Markan tradition, I have a few more words to say about logion 21:9, which I had formerly moved to the triple-tradition list of sayings used by Secret Mark; I assumed Q, while copying Secret Mark, just happened to ignore this saying, hence Matthew and Marcion/Luke happened to ignore it, too.  I may modify that position a bit.

But first, logion 40.

Logion 40 at first seems unique to Matthew among the synoptics.  However, there is evidence that not only Luke may have known it, but Mark as well. 

One of the keywords in this logion is "root" (Coptic NOUNE): "it will be pulled up by its root".  The word "root" (Greek RIZAN) appears in the triple tradition twice, both in the Parable of the Sower, first in the parable itself, then in the explanation:


Mt 13:6==Mk 4:6(==Lk 8:6)
Mt 13:21==Mk 4:17==Lk 8:19.

In the parable itself, Luke just shows a little fatigue and glosses over "it was scorched, and because it had no root, it withered away" with "it withered away, because it had no moisture".  At any rate, all of this stems from a separate logion, GTh 9, of course, which also speaks of a "root".  So that is the source for the usage here.

But there is also a Q-saying involving roots: in Q, it's placed into the mouth of not Jesus, but John the Baptist:

Mt 3:10==Lk 3:9

"Even now the axe lies at the root of the trees. Therefore, every tree that doesn't bring forth good fruit is cut down, and cast into the fire." [Matthew's version, with nearly identical wording in GLk.]

This is strikingly similar to GTh 40:

Jesus said: "A grapevine has been planted apart from the Father.  Since it is not strong, it will be pulled up by its root and will perish."

It seems likely that this is a composition by the Q-author, drawn from GTh 40.  So we should add logion 40 to our list of Q-sayings drawn from GTh.

But this isn't the only parallel to logion 40 in GMt. There's also Mt 15:13:

"Every plant which my heavenly Father didn't plant will be uprooted."

This also seems likely to be drawn from logion 40.  So we'd like to say that the Q-author just made double-use of this saying.  But the problem with Mt 15:13 is, it seems to be uniquely Matthean material.  There is no Lukan parallel.  Or is there?  Let's see if we can find "root" elsewhere in the gospels. 

In Matthew, we find it used in the Parable of the Tares, Mt 13:24-40.  But this is another Thomasine parallel, this time with logion 57, and one we've already noted (here).  If Matthew uses "root up" (EKRIZWSHTE) where Thomas uses "pull up" (Coptic XWLE), this is most likely just due to slight differences in translation as GTh made its way into both Coptic and Greek Matthew.  We already explained why we thought Marcion (=proto-Luke) would have left this parable out of his gospel.  This parallel with logion 57 properly belongs to Q (who apparently had the concept of "rooting up" on his mind, probably inherited from Thomas), but for a Lukan parallel with "root" in Mt 15:13, we need to keep looking.

In GLk, we do find "root" used in Lk 17:6, a Q-parallel with Mt 17:20-21, in which Luke replaces the Matthean command to move a mountain, with a command to "uproot" (EKRIZWQHTI) a mulberry (“sycamine”) tree.  (I should note that Bezae lacks this word--and in general resembles Matthew--but there is no other support for this even in the Latin manuscripts, and despite my respect for Bezan readings I think we can ignore this as part of a Bezan assimilation to Matthew.)  It looks like we’ve found a Lukan parallel with Mt 15:13 after all—Luke has just blended a Q saying about moving mountains by faith, with another Q saying about uprooting trees.  So logion 40 apparently belongs on the list of Q parallels with GTh.

We’re not quite done, however, because there may be a Johannine parallel to all this, in Jn 15:1-6 (“I am the true vine…anyone who does not remain in me will be thrown out like a branch and wither…”)  If this is indeed a parallel, how did it find its way into GJn?

I think this may be evidence that logion 40 was originally paralleled in Secret Mark.  Canonical Mark took the original version and turned it into the fig tree incident; Q used it more or less as found in Secret Mark.  And John turned it into a more extended metaphor.  Was the original Markan version perhaps a saying not of Jesus but of John the Baptist, the relic of which is now found only Mt 3:10==Lk 3:9?  We can’t be certain.  At any rate the Thomasine version sounds suspiciously specific (and seems a clear reference to the destruction of Jerusalem) and the original was probably closer to the Matthean version, without the identification of "the Father" with "my Father"--hence the similar sayings in the Gospel of Philip (85:29-31), Ignatius (Trall. 11:1, Phil. 3:1), and the Pseudo-Clementines (Hom. 3:52).

So we can tentatively move logion 40 to the list of Thomasine parallels in Secret Mark, with some reservations.  And my guess is it was originally attributed in Secret Mark to John the Baptist, not Jesus, but this is just a suspicion.