In the coming October 2001 issue of the Expository Times, there is an
article by Cyril Rodd on "The End of the Theology of Q?". Rodd considers
to what extent the gospel of Mark could be recovered from Matthew and
Luke assuming that Mark had been lost. He shows that the reconstructed
'Mark' would not provide enough information for us to discover the
theology of the gospel of Mark that we have.
He concludes (summarizing his article) --
>"The passages in Mark that cannot be recovered from Luke and Matthew
>make **a very great deal** of difference to Mark's theology. Once that
>is realized, it becomes obvious that to attempt to present the
>theology of Q is utter folly. As 'Mark' [reconstructed from Mt and Lk]
>is not Mark, so, in all probability the 'Q' of the scholars is not the
>historical document Q. But more important than suggesting this as a
>probability is the fact that *we do not know**. Moreover, until a
>papyrus containing the whole of Q, including, most importantly, its
>beginning and end, is discovered in the sands of Egypt or in some
>monastic library, **we can never know**."
I would make one comment. Throughout the article, Rodd steadfastly
assumes that the Two Document Hypothesis is true, and therefore that Q
(as defined by the 2DH) existed. If, however, it is shown that Q did not
exist, Rodd's final sentence above is false. If Q never existed then
neither did any theology of Q, and no discovery in any desert sand or
library collection could alter the situation.
>HOMEPAGE *** RECENTLY UPDATED *** http://www.twonh.demon.co.uk/
Rev B.E.Wilson,10 York Close,Godmanchester,Huntingdon,Cambs,PE29 2EB,UK
> "What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot
> speak thereof one must be silent." Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus".
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...