What if Q were to be found: in the canon or not?

[bmonk]

There is no Q. There never has been a Q.

And you have proof of this? Proving a negative is hard.

Q was postulated because of the similarities, often word-for-word, between Matthew and Luke. The simplest explanation for such similarities is that another document existed that both used.

 

[vz71]

And you have proof of this? Proving a negative is hard.

Q was postulated because of the similarities, often word-for-word, between Matthew and Luke. The simplest explanation for such similarities is that another document existed that both used.

There is a simpler explanation.
That the events told of were the same and were written by people that witnessed the events or were very close to those that witnessed the events.

 

[porthos11]

Porthos - thank you! I’m having trouble getting my meaning across. Would not the use of such a document as a source for accepted scripture at least lest to consideration of it being added to the canon? And if there were to be such consideration, how could it be carried out?

Again, no because such a document would not have met the criteria. One cannot say that Q had in been in constant use in the liturgy of the Church; that alone precludes it from being added to the canon. The same holds for any lost-then-found letter of St. Paul, for instance.

 

[colliric]

The more interesting debate to me is what would happen if the Gospel according to Saint Matthew was found complete in it’s original language. Would it be retranslated? Would it become the main work and the Greek version considered “referencing”? Would any differences be so insignificant that it would be a pointless exercise?

And was it destiny it would become one of the most famous lost books of all time and that we were destined to use the Greek translation?

 

[patrick457]

And you have proof of this? Proving a negative is hard.

Q was postulated because of the similarities, often word-for-word, between Matthew and Luke. The simplest explanation for such similarities is that another document existed that both used.

But this necessitates as I pointed out postulating that Matthew and Luke are ignorant of each other’s gospels (something supporters of Q are very big about). Otherwise it is also possible that one drew from the other as a source, without needing to resort to a hypothetical document like the Logienquelle.

 

[patrick457]

The more interesting debate to me is what would happen if the Gospel according to Saint Matthew was found complete in it’s original language. Would it be retranslated? Would it become the main work and the Greek version considered “referencing”? Would any differences be so insignificant that it would be a pointless exercise?

And was it destiny it would become one of the most famous lost books of all time and that we were destined to use the Greek translation?

But what if Matthew’s ‘Hebrew’ “Logia of the Lord” is say, more ‘primitive’ than our canonical Greek Matthew (i.e. a sort of a rough draft) - which actually turns out to be the more polished version? Hey, you can’t exclude all possibilities.

 

[bmonk]

There is a simpler explanation.
That the events told of were the same and were written by people that witnessed the events or were very close to those that witnessed the events.

Ah, but have you ever looked at the description by two people, even when they were eyewitnesses of the same event? They rarely are the same–some tell different details, use different words, tell things in different order, and so on. We can tell they are the same story, but not the same author.

The similarities between Luke and Matthew are of a kind that nearly require one to be copying another (unlikely, given how Luke tends to use his sources), or both copying a written text.

 

[vz71]

Ah, but have you ever looked at the description by two people, even when they were eyewitnesses of the same event? They rarely are the same–some tell different details, use different words, tell things in different order, and so on. We can tell they are the same story, but not the same author.

Assuming that these people all pay attention to different details and assuming they will remember the different details later on.

Of course, people tend to remember unusual events the same way.

When I was in high school, the science teacher was disgusted with the low grade average the class scored for a test. After grading the tests, he threw all of the papers down in front of the class and yelled at us to pick up our trash and do our homework.
Every one of us remembered the papers, the teacher, what was said, what time it was…etc.
And when questioned later by the school administration, we all gave the same story.

Sure there were likely differences in what each perceived, but the common event was much larger then those details and that event is what was written down…not the details.

I am quite certain in the day to day miracle that was walking with Christ, there are many occasions when the recalled evnts are the same among different people.
The event is simply bigger then the details.

 

[drforjc]

Again, no because such a document would not have met the criteria. One cannot say that Q had in been in constant use in the liturgy of the Church; that alone precludes it from being added to the canon. The same holds for any lost-then-found letter of St. Paul, for instance.

Absolutely agree.

 

[patrick457]

Ah, but have you ever looked at the description by two people, even when they were eyewitnesses of the same event? They rarely are the same–some tell different details, use different words, tell things in different order, and so on. We can tell they are the same story, but not the same author.

The similarities between Luke and Matthew are of a kind that nearly require one to be copying another (unlikely, given how Luke tends to use his sources), or both copying a written text.

To be exact, in many instances all three Synoptics have the same grammar and use identical words (there are even places where they agree exactly verbatim with one another), which is the reason why we call them ‘Synoptics’ in the first place. The similarities are much more evident if you read the Greek: some English translations opt to render the same sentence or phrase differently between each Gospel, which kind of obscures it.

 

[patrick457]

You can find a few samples of a synopses between the three Gospels here. Here for example is the Parable of the Sower (Greek text here).

 

[COPLAND_3]

I enjoy hypothetical questioning because it stimulates thought and imagination, but its not good when people take it to a point which leads to conspiracy theories or creating ideas that the Church missed out on something better.

 

[porthos11]

I enjoy hypothetical questioning because it stimulates thought and imagination, but its not good when people take it to a point which leads to conspiracy theories or creating ideas that the Church missed out on something better.

That’s right. The original post was clear: IF Q existed… this is not the thread to debunk the existence of Q, only whether it could be added to the canon ASSUMING it exists and ASSUMING it was found.

I don’t subscribe to Q myself, but it’s perfectly acceptable for me to chime in to the hypothetical.

 

[bmonk]

But this necessitates as I pointed out postulating that Matthew and Luke are ignorant of each other’s gospels (something supporters of Q are very big about). Otherwise it is also possible that one drew from the other as a source, without needing to resort to a hypothetical document like the Logienquelle.

Not likely, due to technical considerations. Basically it comes down to how they used their sources. We have how each used Mark, and can get some idea of what sort of changes they make from sources. For example, Luke tends to use his source in large chunks, and edits as he goes. Matthew does much more cut-and-paste to rearrange the material, but small sections still come across intact. But Mathew does not treat Luke that way, or vice versa. It is possible–but very unlikely that they used each other.

 

[colliric]

Not likely, due to technical considerations. Basically it comes down to how they used their sources. We have how each used Mark, and can get some idea of what sort of changes they make from sources. For example, Luke tends to use his source in large chunks, and edits as he goes. Matthew does much more cut-and-paste to rearrange the material, but small sections still come across intact. But Mathew does not treat Luke that way, or vice versa. It is possible–but very unlikely that they used each other.

It’s possible that Luke had and used, as reference, the Hebrew Gospel of Saint Matthew from which the Greek version was a translation. That’s the elephant in the room that proponents both for and against Q seem to ignore.

 

[patrick457]

Not likely, due to technical considerations. Basically it comes down to how they used their sources. We have how each used Mark, and can get some idea of what sort of changes they make from sources. For example, Luke tends to use his source in large chunks, and edits as he goes. Matthew does much more cut-and-paste to rearrange the material, but small sections still come across intact. But Mathew does not treat Luke that way, or vice versa. It is possible–but very unlikely that they used each other.

For the benefit of all of us, can you go into detail as to why it would be unlikely that, say, Luke used Matthew? I’ll formulate a response when I get my hands on a decent computer.

 

[Erich]

The same holds for any lost-then-found letter of St. Paul, for instance.

From newadvent.org/cathen/01601a.htm

Pseudo-Epistles of St. Paul; Correspondence with the Corinthians
The ancient Syrian (Edessene) Church revered as canonical a Third Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, which is accompanied by a letter from the pastors of that Church, to which it is an answer. But about the beginning of the fifth century the Syrian Church fell under the influence of the Greek, and in consequence the spurious letter gradually lost its canonical status. It was taken up by the neighbouring Armenians and for centuries has formed a part of the Armenian New Testament. Latin and Greek writers are completely silent about this pseudograph, although Greek and Latin copies have been found. It was obviously suggested by the lost genuine Pauline letter referred to in 1 Corinthians 5:9 and 7:1. It was composed by a Catholic presbyter about 160-170, and is a disguised attack on some of the leading errors of Gnosticism. This correspondence long had an independent circulation, but recently it has been proved that the document was incorporated into the Acts of St. Paul (q.v.).
Here’s the letter, if you want to read it for yourself.

 

[patrick457]

It’s possible that Luke had and used, as reference, the Hebrew Gospel of Saint Matthew from which the Greek version was a translation. That’s the elephant in the room that proponents both for and against Q seem to ignore.

Trivia: the Q theory had its roots on the idea that the Synoptic Gospels used the fabled elusive “Logia” that Matthew supposedly wrote according to Papias. Q’s full name used even today in German, Logienquelle* (‘Logia-source’) is a relic of this.*

 

[Erich]

And you have proof of this? Proving a negative is hard.

Q was postulated because of the similarities, often word-for-word, between Matthew and Luke. The simplest explanation for such similarities is that another document existed that both used.

From The Authors of the Gospels:
There is not the slightest historical evidence, or even a hint, that Q or its author ever existed. If Q had existed, it would have been the most precious scroll of Christianity during the first 50-70 years of the new religion. According to the Markans we owe the preservation of The Our Father and The Beatitudes to Q. Mark did not bother to record them. If Q had been the key document containing the sayings of Christ, it would have been treasured, copied and passed from hand to hand and read at Services.

Markan priorists want us to believe that the community that produced Q later lost it, although it was so important that Matthew and Luke, unknown to each other, made much use of it. Then the communities of Matthew and Luke also lost it. It is hard to believe that only two copies were made of Q and these just happened to be in the possession of the isolated communities in which Matthew and Luke lived and these communities lost them. If more copies were made for many communities, Markans have to explain how all these copies of this key Christian document were lost. Also, how did ‘Q’ disappear without leaving even a vague reference or echo in any piece of Christian or heretical literature?

Those who hold the Markan theory demand the most stringent proof for the historicity of the Gospels, for which we have much historical evidence. Yet they accept conjectures and theories about Q, based on further conjectures and theories for which there is no evidence at all. In reality Q was created in the 19th century, out of nothing, to fill a hole in the Markan priority theory.

 

[steve53]

“There is not the slightest historical evidence, or even a hint, that Q or its author ever existed.”

If “Q” never existed, then I would agree that its author never existed as well.

But it is tough to prove a negative to a negative. Would that be a positive?