At first I included logion 44 in my list of triple-traditions sayings, i.e. the Thomasine sayings used by Secret Mark, and from thence copied into the synoptic gospels, via Q, canonical Mark, or both. Other GTh scholars, like De Conick, also note parallels to logion 44 in all three synoptic gospels.
However, I now think that only the Q author used logion 44. The Markan author didn't. The Markan version is independent of the Q version. Matthew used both the Markan and the Q version, and Luke blended the two together.
The reason why I changed my mind is because there's another, extra-canonical version of logion 44. It's in the Didache. Didache 11:7--
"And every prophet who speaks in the Spirit you shall neither try nor judge; for every sin shall be forgiven, but this sin shall not be forgiven."
What if the Markan author took it from Didache instead?
I am not the first to notice the parallel; Tuckett, for example, discusses it in his "Synoptic Tradition in the Didache" (found, for example, in Draper's The Didache in Modern Research, available on Google Books). Tuckett (and others) think there is a parallel between Did 11:7 and Matthew's version of the saying, Mt 12:31. For example, Tuckett sees PASA AMARTIA in GMt as Matthean redaction of PANTA TA AMARTHMATA in GMk. I agree with this, but I think the Markan version is its own, independent parallel with Did 11:7.
At first the evidence would seem to be against this--GMk has PANTA TA AMARTHMATA, for example, whereas the Didache has PASA GAR AMARTIA, not really the same thing. But earlier in Did 11:7, the author speaks of PANTA PROFHTHN. I propose that Mark just reworded the saying, using PANTA instead of PASA when describing sins. He also transfered the concepts of PEIRASETE and DIAKRINEITE (to put on trial and to judge), when applied to prophets speaking in the spirit, into BLASFHMIAI. And it's Mark who speaks of "sins", AMARTHMATA, just as the Didache does (AMARTIA). GTh cannot provide this for Mark, not even in the original, simpler form that De Conick envisions for it.
Whereas the Q version is much closer to the GTh version; GTh states that "he who speaks against the son will be forgiven", and the Matthean and Lukan versions repeat this structure: "whoever/everyone who speaks (a word) against the Son (of man) will be forgiven". The Markan version reverses this structure: it is blasphemy that will be forgiven the sons of man. And sin is not spoken of in the Q version, only "speaking...against", just as in GTh.
Matthew, to be sure, also shows hints that he knew the Didachean version:
1) he uses PASA, which he could not have gotten from GMk
2) he uses AMARTIA instead of Markan AMARTHMATA
3) and he has the same order as the Didache, PASA AMARTIA...AFEQHSETAI, whereas Mark uses PANTA...AMARTHMATA...AFEQHSETAI.
So did Matthew also use Didache?
Well, in turn:
1) Matthew has just used PASA in Mt 12:25, a Q-saying, PASA BASILEIA...PASA POLIS (the first half of which is shared with GLk), so he may have just used the word again here
2) Matthew speaks of "sin" repeatedly (unlike Mark) and usually uses forms of AMARTIA, hence it's no surprise he uses it here
3) and yet Luke/Marcion uses PAS here, instead of Markan PANTA...providing evidence that PASA was found in the Q version after all.
So what could this Q version have looked like?
As Tuckett points out, "It is almost universally agreed that the Q version of the saying has "whoever/everyone who speaks a word against the Son of man" in the first half. He goes on to say "and has nothing equivaent to PASA AMARTIA...which is amost certainly MattR of Mark's PANTA TA AMARTHMATA". In this, however, I think the majority of scholars have it wrong; the Lukan/Marcionic PAS belies the original Q version; it must have begun with PASA--why would both Luke/Marcion and Matthew choose to replace PANTA with PASA/PAS? True, it can be expained if we assume Lukan dependence on Matthew (or vice versa), but so far our HSH has been making a case for a Q-gospel as the predecessor for both Matthew and Marcion/Luke.
Furthermore, the majority scholarship also admits the Q version may have begun with PASA when they vacillate between beginning the Q version with either "whoever" or "everyone". It must have been one or the other; which is more likely? It's more likely the latter, because again, why else would Matthew and Marcion/Luke have made the same choice to change "whoever" (OS [E]AN) to "every/everyone" (PASA/PAS OS)? Furthermore, we've established that the Q-author used GTh logia to construct his gospel, and here he used logion 44, "He who speaks against the son..." The closest grammatical parallel here (albeit in Coptic) is between "he who" and "whoever", not between "he who" and "everyone".
And, the traditional Q version seems to begin with KAI, "and". Why would both Matthew and Marcion/Luke decide to introduce it this way? This suggests strongly that the traditional Q version is actually the second part of a longer version, one with an introductory clause coming just before KAI. The candidate for this clause is...the introductory Matthean version, PASA AMARTIA...AFEQHSETAI.
So it looks like the Q version actually contained two clauses about forgiveness; one that began with PAS/PASA, "every/everyone", and another that began with ON EAN (or some equivalent), "he who". The latter is from GTh, logion 44. So was the former clause just redaction of the Markan version?
If it was, then why does the Matthean version of it so closely resemble the version found in the Didache? We can't assume unique Matthean usage of the Didache, because Marcion/Luke also has PAS. So if the Didache had anything to do with this clause...then it must have been the Q author who used Didache, not Matthew. In which case the original first clause must have been something very much like, if not idential to, the Didachean version, PASA [GAR] AMARTIA AFEQHSETAI. My bet is that the original Q version read something like:
"Every sin will be forgiven,
And whoever speaks a word against the son of man will be forgiven,
But whoever speaks a word against the spirit will not be forgiven."
Also notice that there is another half-parallel between GMt and Did. here: the use of AUTH in Did. and the use of AUTW in GMt. And this is also reflected in GLk. Admittedly the resemblance is not grammatical, but one could still have inspired the use of the other. So perhaps it wasn't Matthew who duplicated Mark's use of the Didache; it was the Q-author. The Q-author took logion 44 from GTh, and tweaked it slighly with language he drew (or was familiar with) from Didache.
(See also M. Eugene Boring, "The Unforgivable Sin Logion", in Novum Testamentum 18(4) p.258-279 for a thorough argument for Markan priority and independence here. Note that Boring finds a chiastic structure within the Markan version; I find this plausible, but this should not be confused with the larger chiastic structures found in Mark in general. See later posts for further discussion of this.)
Ok so far. But what about the Markan version? We'll turn to that in the next post.
No comments:
Post a Comment