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.

The Unforgivable Sin Logion, Pt. 2

In our last post, we ended by wondering if there is direct textual evidence that the author of Mk 3:28-29 relied on Did 11:7 as his source for the saying about the unforgivable sin, rather than GTh 44.  This post will present that evidence.

The Unforgivable Sin Logion, Pt. 1

This post inaugurates a short series on GTh 44.  It will prove crucial to the next phase of my HSH project.  Logion 44 seems to have parallels in both GMk and in the Q-gospel.  We'll be investigating it to see how it could have ended up in both.  Our conclusions will be somewhat surprising.

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? 

Two Lists: GTh sayings in the Markan and Q traditions

So here are the results of our research on the Gospel of Thomas.  We have two groups of sayings: one was incorporated together into the Markan tradition, by the author of Secret Mark (and hence became triple synoptic tradition), and the other was incorporated together into the Q gospel (which itself derived from Secret Mark, hence already included some of the triple tradition material).

Canonical Mark was then derived from Secret Mark, and was combined with the Q gospel (i.e. the Gospel of Peter) to create the Gospel of Matthew and Marcion's gospel.  (Marcion's gospel would eventually morph into the Gospel of Luke, largely based on Marcion's work.)

Here is the group of logia incorporated directly from GTh into Secret Mark--parentheses indicate questionable parallels, a tilde ("~") indicates a similarity to a stronger parallel, and the square brackets indicate an alternate versification.

4:2  (5~)6:5-6  9  (14:4?)  (14:5?)  20  (21:9[10]?)  22:1-2(~46:2)  31  33  35  (40?)  41  46b  47  48(~106)  62:1  65  66  71  99  100  104  113

And here is the (much larger) group of logia incorporated directly from GTh into Q:

2  3:1-2  4  8  10  14:4  16  21:5  24:3  26  30  32  33:1  34  36  39:1-2  43:3  45  46a  47:2  54  55  57  58  61:1  61:3  62:2  63  64  68  69  72  73  75  76:1-2?  76:3  78  79  86  89  90  91:2  92:1  93  94  95  96:1-2  101  103  107  109  113

A couple of things to notice right off the bat:

GTh: Moving Mountains

A bit more about the saying “On Faith” (i.e. moving mountains/uprooting trees)

Adding GTh: Cleaning Up, pt. 3

Just a couple more to discuss: logia 75 and 21:9.

75

Schenk thinks Mt 22:14 is a parallel to logion 75.  De Conick notes that Schuermann connects it with Lk 13:25, only to dismiss this claim.  I disagree with De Conick, however, but I would also expand the parallel to include Lk 13:24-25.  This has its own parallel in GMt, Mt 7:13-14, and is a Q saying.  Mt 22:14, meanwhile, is probably just an echo of this same saying.  I doubt logion 75 is the original version of the saying, but whatever it was, it should probably be added to the list of Thomasine parallels in the Q-gospel.

21:9

This saying merits a brief discussion.  Earlier I suggested it could just be ignored; maybe it was a chance resemblance between GMk and GTh, or else for one reason or another both Matthew and Marcion/Luke happened to leave it alone.  It could be that it was ignored by Q, and then consequently by Matthew and Luke.  That's still not unlikely, but the possibility that it's a chance resemblance between GMk and GTh, due perhaps to oral tradition, is even more likely than I previously suggested, because as De Conick shows, this saying has a parallel in Revelation 14:15-16.  In the HSH, Revelation likely predates all the canonical gospels (and I am not the first to suggest an early date), so this logion may have simply been commonly used in early Christian circles.  It therefore could easily have found its way independently into both GTh and canonical GMk.  I move it to the list of parallels in Secret Mark, but only with strong reservations.  At any rate, even if it wasn't added by Secret Mark, but rather by canonical Mark, that is no evidence whatsoever that canonical Mark used GTh; he could well have been familiar with the logion via a separate tradition.


And that basically completes our investigation.  However, we have a couple more cases to discuss in detail: the "On Faith" pericope, and the "Beelzebub/Unforgivable Sin" pericope.  That will launch us into our next subject: the Didache.  And before that, we'll be able to provide a complete list of GTh logia used by Secret Mark, and then those used by Q.

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:

Adding GTh, Cleaning Up: pt. 1.

We're basically done investigating GTh as a source for the gospels, but there are some odds and ends to tidy up.  Let's try to get a finalized list of sayings that were added at each step: by Secret Mark on the one hand, and then later by the Q-gospel author.

One resource I've used to help firm up this list is the commentary by Craig Schenk at the Internet Sacred Text Archive:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/thomas.htm

Schenk doesn't find every parallel and makes a few mistakes, but has been very helpful in showing that Miller et al's analysis is incomplete as well.  (I'll also be checking April De Conick's list in the appendix to The Original Gospel of Thomas In Translation just to make sure I've caught everything.)

Adding GTh, pt. 8

In closing, we'll examine the last two uniquely Lukan logia on our list: logia 3:3a and 113.  We'll be looking to see if we can explain how parallels to these two logia found their way into the Marcionic/Lukan tradition, but not into the Matthean.

Adding GTh, pt. 7

Let’s look at the GTh parallels in Luke/Marcion.  Again, they are

        3:3a    Lk 17:21b
        10    Lk 12:49
        63    Lk 12:16-21
        72    Lk 12:13-14
        79    Lk 11:27-28
        113    Lk 17:20-21

Adding GTh, pt. 6

In my last post, I said that it was unlikely that the Thomasine sayings found in Mc/GLk could have been in the Q source, because Matthew would have had no good reason to ignore them.  They were all compatible with the Matthean ethic.  And yet, they were not in fact found in GMt; so I concluded that they must therefore have been left out of the Q source, but added by Marcion/Luke directly from GTh.

I may have spoken too soon, however.

Adding GTh, pt. 5

Remember that we're looking for the simplest solution, that still explains all the evidence.  Due to the interlocking relationships among the four traditions of Thomasine sayings we've found in the synoptics (Markan, Q, Matthean, and Marcionic/Lukan), we still need to consider two simpler possibilities--under the assumption, that is, that GTh predates the synoptics:

a) One is that the Thomasine sayings unique to Mc/GLk were actually found in Q, and Matthew chose to ignore them. 

b) The other is that the Thomasine sayings unique to GMt were actually found in Q, and Marcion/Luke chose to ignore them.

Of course, there is an even simpler solution:

ab) The Thomasine sayings unique to GMt, and those unique to Mc/GLk, were all found in Q, and Matthew and Marcion/Luke each ignored the ones they disliked.  (And, some may have been ignored by both and are now lost to us.)

We don't have Q at our disposal, so we can't say with certainty what its contents were.  Scholars have assembled a "Q" document, based on material shared between GMt and GLk, but were those the only contents of Q?  We really have no way of knowing, and it is just as likely that there was more there than that the shared material is a complete description of its contents.  If there was more there, some could have found its way into GMt without finding its way into GLk, and vice versa.  So how are we do decide among the scenarios presented above?

Adding GTh, pt. 4

We now examine logia from GTh found uniquely in one synoptic gospel or another.

Adding GTh, pt. 3 continued

Of course, I have already noted that Lk 17:5-6 may not have been in Marcion at all (Knox puts it in his category C, "uncertain")--in which case, Luke (=the author of canonical GLk) was the first to combine the separate Markan and Q sayings about moving the mountain into the single saying in Lk 17.  In that case, we have to explain why Marcion would have left it out--especially if he found it twice, once in each source.

But then we have almost the same problem under the traditional understanding that Marcion edited Luke.  We not only have to explain why Luke combined the two sayings into one, but we also have to explain why Marcion would have left it out. 

And, if we instead assume that Marcion did not leave it out, and that Tertullian just didn't happen to mention it, that solves the problem for Marcionic priority just as much as it does for Lukan priority.  So I am not very concerned about whether there is an obvious answer to the question of why Marcion wouldn't have included what we now know as Lk 17:5-6.

Adding GTh, pt. 3

To recap, we found that there are two large blocks of GTh material found in more than one gospel: one block found in all three synoptics, and another found in Q material.  This implies that each block was added to a source document, which was then used by other gospels.  In the two-source hypothesis, these two sources would have been GMk and Q; in a Farrar-Goulder hypothesis, these two sources would have been GMk and GMt.  In the Hyper-Synoptic Hypothesis, these two sources would have been either Secret Mark or GMk (we'll decide later), and GPetQ.

Adding GTh, pt. 2

In pt. 1, we eliminated any direct link between GTh and GJn.  This means we need only figure out the direct relationship between GTh and the synoptics.

We're therefore looking for seven categories of uses of GTh in the synoptics:

1) triple-tradition logia
2) logia shared only by GMt and GLk/Mc (i.e. logia found in Q)
3) logia shared only by GMt and GMk (other than those found in Q)
4) logia shared only by GMk and GLk/Mc (other than those found in Q)
5) logia unique to GMt
6) logia unique to GMk
7) logia unique to GLk/Mc

Adding GTh, pt. 1

This post begins a series in which I'll present the links between GTh and the gospels, showing that not only were there three instances of these links, but that GTh predates all four canonical gospels.  We leave aside for now the argument for multiple stages of composition for GTh (fwiw I think this is possible, and it's compatible with my diagram here, but we're keeping things simple for now.  Hopefully we'll have time to come back to this later.)

Remember that in the HSH, one of our guiding rubrics is the assumption that the apocryphal works precede the canonical gospels, and not the other way around.  So, we're trying to find evidence that GTh precedes the gospels.