The Unforgiable Sin Logion, pt. 5

Matthew also replaces Mark's unusual AMARTHMATA with AMARTIA, the same word as in Didache.  (AMARTHMATA is actually Pauline, showing the influence of Paul, especially Rom. and 1 Cor., on Mark.)  But in Mark's other uses of "sin" (AMART-) Matthew pretty much follows him verbatim.  So why would he have changed Mark's word here?  Matthew likely had another influence in this case, and Didache provides the best candiate for this influence, whether directly or indirectly.

Remember also that Matthew follows the same order as the Didache, PASA AMARTIA...AFEQHSETAI, whereas Mark uses PANTA...AFEQHSETAI...AMARTHMATA  How could Matthew have coincidentally followed the same order as Didache in these three words, if it had not influenced him one way or another (again, directly or indirectly)?


To finish our analysis, let's turn briefly to Luke's version.  Notice that he keeps the Unforgivable Sin logion away from the Beelzebub incident altogether--the Beelzebub incident is Lk 11:14-23, but the Unforgivable Sin logion is Lk 12:10.  Why would he do this?



Well, there is in fact a Q version of the Beelzebub incident, that Matthew and Luke would have used.  And, unlike the Markan version, that Q version lacks the Unvorgivable Sin logion:

He exorcised a demon that had made a man a mute, and when the demon had been thrown out, the dumb man spoke and the people marveled. But some said, "He exorcises demons by Beelzebul, the ruler of demons."
Knowing their thoughts, he said to them, "Every kingdom divided against itself is destroyed, and every house divided against itself will not stand. And if Satan also is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand?"
"You say that I exorcise demons by Beelzebul. If I exorcise demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons exorcise them? Why not ask them and see what they say?"
"But if I exorcise demons by the finger of God, then God's rule has caught up with you."
"When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace his possessions are safe. But when someone stronger than he attacks and conquers him, the stronger demolishes his defenses and then plunders his goods."

Matthew clearly blended this with the canonical Markan version, generally favoring the Markan version.  Luke (or Marcion, or whomever) also blended them, but favored the Q version almost to the total exclusion of the Markan version.  And he certainly excluded the Markan bit about unforgivable sins.

Now to this blend, as we showed in the last post, Matthew also included the Q version of the Unforgivable Sin logion, mixing it in with the Markan version, in the Markan location--at the end of the Beelzebub incident.  But again, Luke keeps it apart from the Beelzebub incident--it falls a bit later, in Lk 12 rather than Lk 11.  And that tells us...that in Q, the Beelzebub incident and the Unforgivable Sin logion did not appear together. 

That's consistent with the notion that canonical Mark was the one to add it to GMk from the Didache, if...there was an earlier version of GMk that lacked the Unforgivable Sin logion.  And the Hyper-Synoptic Hypothesis makes just that claim: Secret GMk preceded canonical GMk, and it would be in Secret GMk that we would find the earlier version of the Beelzebub incident.  Indeed, that's where Q got it from--Q took the version found in Secret Mark and perhaps rewrote it a little.  Q also took Did. 11:7 and GTh 44 and crafted a version of the Unforgivable Sin logion out of them.  But that was done separately from the Beelzebub incident--because the Unforgivable Sin logion wasn't in Secret Mark at all. 

More evidence that this is on the right track comes from Michael Turton.  Turton shows that the Beelzebub incident, a famous example of the Mark-Q overlaps, is actually Markan, original to GMk.  I agree with this in part--but I argue that it came not from canonical GMk, but from an earlier version of GMk.  Turton agrees that there was a more original version of GMk, and a later revision into the canonical version, but he doesn't think this was Secret Mark.  Whereas I think there is every evidence that Turton's "original GMk" was in fact Secret Mark.  At any rate, here I am refering to the same document that Turton is refering to.  I call it Secret Mark and he doesn't.  His arguments still hold.


To sum up:

1) The original Markan author (I call him/her Secret Mark) wrote an early version of the Beelzebub incident.  It made no mention of an unforgivable sin.

2) The Q author rewrote this original Markan gospel under the influence of several other texts, including a Greek or Syriac version of the Gospel of Thomas, as well as the Didache.  Seeing the similarities between Did. 11:7 and GTh 44, he blended them together into a unique version of the Unforgivable Sin logion, which began with PASA (GAR) AMARTIA AFEQHSETAI, followed by a restatement (in Greek) of the Thomasine version.

3) Meanwhile, the canonical Markan author (really an editor, or redactor, or revisor) took the original Markan gospel (i.e. Secret Mark in my model) and rewrote, among other things, the Beelzebub incident, adding a version of Did. 11:7 to the end of it.

4) Matthew, using both Q and canonical GMk, found two different versions of the Beelzebub incident, and blended them together, trying to preserve as much of both as possible.  When he got to the end, he noticed that GMk had a version of the Unforgivable Sin logion at the end of this incident.  He took the Q version of this saying, and blended it into the mix, leaving it at the Markan narrative location.

5) Luke(/Marcion) also used both Q and canonical GMk, but in the case of the Beelzebub incident, he preserved most of the Q version, maybe adding a word or two from the Markan version.  When it came to the Unforgivable Sin logion, he likewise preferred the Q version, dropping it from the Beelzebub incident altogether, and leaving it in its Q location later on in the narrative.

In the next post or two, I'll try to provide some charts that illustrate this a little more clearly.