The Unforgivable Sin Logion, pt. 3

GTh logion 44 ("He who speaks against the father will be forgiven...") seems to have parallels in both GMk (Mk 3:28-29) and in the Q-gospel (Q 12:10).  From these sources, it seems to have found its way into GMt and GLk--Matthew combines the two, keeping the saying in its Markan position in the Beelzebul incident, whereas Luke blends them together and relocates it somewhat.  In the synoptics, it is called, in general, the "Unforgivable Sin logion".  We'll be investigating it to see how it could have ended up in both the Markan and the Q traditions.  Our conclusions will be, I think, somewhat surprising.



At first I included logion 44 in my list of triple-tradition sayings--that is, Thomasine sayings used by Secret Mark, which then found their way into the synoptics via canonical Mark, Q (which derives from Secret Mark), or both.  GTh scholars like De Conick note parallels to logion 44 in all three synoptics.  I assumed it was used by Secret Mark, copied from there in to Q and GMk, and from those two sources found its way into GMt and GLk.

However, I now think that only the Q author used logion 44.  The Markan author did not use it at all.  Instead, I now think the Markan version of the logion is independent of the Q version.  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.

This seems to differ significantly from the Thomasine version, and in ways that parallel the Markan differences from the Q version.  So, I suggest that the Markan author derived Mk 3:28-29 from the Didache, not from GTh.

I am not the first to notice the parallel between the Unforgivable Sin logion in general and Did 11:7.  Tuckett, for example, discusses it in his "Synoptic Tradition in the Didache".  Tuckett (and others) find a parallel between Did 11:7 and Matthew's version in Mt 12:31-32.  However, Tuckett sees no reason to conclude that the Didache preceded Matthew.  I disagree, but I can at least agree with Tuckett that Mk 3:28-29 influenced Mt 12:31-32.

However, the Markan version is Mark's own, independent use of the Didache.

At first the evidence would seem to be against linking Mk 3:28-29 and Did 11:7.  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 Didachean author does speak of PANTA PROFHTHN.

I therefore propose that the Markan author:

a) rephrased Did 11:7, using PANTA...TA AMARTIA instead of PASA (GAR) AMARATIA, then

b) transfered the concepts of PEIRASETE and DIAKRINEITE ("to try/to put on trial" and "to judge"), when applied to prophets speaking in the spirit, into BLASFHMIAI (i.e. trying and judging inspired prophets is tantamount to trying and judging the Holy Spirit, which is blasphemy).

Mark also speaks of "sins" ("AMARTHMATA" in Mark's case) just as the Didache does ("AMARTIA"), but the Thomasine saying doesn't speak of sins at all, even in Coptic.

GTh cannot provide any of this for Mark, not even in the original, simpler form that De Conick envisions for it.  So the evidence seems to suggest that Mk 3:28-29 derives from the Didache, not from GTh.

Next we'll examine the Q version.  I do think this version derives from GTh 44.  However, it, too, will show evidence of influence from the Didache.