A Chiasm for Secret Mark

I wanted to take a brief break from discussing the Didache to touch on the Gospel of Mark.  I have been hypothesizing that there was a pre-canonical version of GMk that the Q author used, and since this hypothesis forms a part of my structure for the composition of the Unforgivable Sin logon, this would be a good time to discuss that pre-canonical version of GMk.  I regard this version as identical with Secret Mark, and I'll show one reason why I think so: because Secret Mark exhibits the distinctly Markan features that Michael Turton has uncovered in his online Commentary to the Gospel of Mark.  That is, it shows the same attention to chiastic structures as Turton's Mark does.

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?

The Unforgiable Sin Logion, pt. 4

Let's get back to the Matthean version.  Tuckett also thinks (in agreement with most scholars) that there was a Q version of this saying.  Most scholars think that it began "He who speaks against the son will be forgiven..." in parallel with GTh.  But notice...

...that both Matthew and Luke begin their versions (Mt 12:31//Lk 12:10) with either PASA (GMt) or PAS (GLk).  The parallel is even more direct in GMt, for he writes PASA AMARTIA AFEQHSETAI where the Didache writes PASA GAR AMARTIA AFEQHSETAI.  Tuckett suggests that Didache derives from GMt here.

But what if...the Didache preceded GMt?  Indeed, why would Matthew use PASA, and Luke PAS, instead of Markan PANTA?  It would seem on the face of it...that both Luke and Matthew are drawing from a single source, one that was somehow related to the Didache, and that contained the Didachean statement PASA (GAR) AMARTIA AFEQHSETAI.

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.