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

[patrick457]

The early historians all clearly report that Matthew wrote the first Gospel… so actually it is the Markan priority theory which makes the greater number of assumptions!

It is indeed true that the one wall that Markan priority could not breach easily is the wall of patristic tradition, and it is indeed true that the early writers usually speak of Matthew writing first.

However, I would like to point out one crucial thing. When the earliest writers speak of Matthew writing his Gospel first, interestingly they usually speak of his ‘Hebrew’ gospel - not the Greek one. Papias, the earliest testimony we have, speaks of Matthew writing the oracles or logia “in the Hebrew language”:

But concerning Matthew he writes as follows: So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able. And the same writer uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John and from that of Peter likewise. And he relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.

St. Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3.1.1):

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.

Origen (Commentary on Matthew, as cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.25.3-6):

Concerning the four Gospels which alone are uncontroverted in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the Gospel according to Matthew, who was at one time a publican and afterwards an Apostle of Jesus Christ, was written first; and that he composed it in the Hebrew tongue and published it for the converts from Judaism. The second written was that according to Mark, who wrote it according to the instruction of Peter, who, in his General Epistle, acknowledged him as a son, saying, The church that is in Babylon, elect together with you, salutes you; and so does Mark my son. (1 Peter 5:13) And third, was that according to Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, which he composed for the converts from the Gentiles. Last of all, that according to John.

(Notice here how Origen, a fellow Alexandrian writing only slightly later than Clement, follows the ‘standard’ order of the Gospels)

Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History 3.24-6-7):

For Matthew, who had at first preached to the Hebrews, when he was about to go to other peoples, committed his Gospel to writing in his native tongue, and thus compensated those whom he was obliged to leave for the loss of his presence. And when Mark and Luke had already published their Gospels, they say that John, who had employed all his time in proclaiming the Gospel orally, finally proceeded to write for the following reason. The three Gospels already mentioned having come into the hands of all and into his own too, they say that he accepted them and bore witness to their truthfulness; but that there was lacking in them an account of the deeds done by Christ at the beginning of his ministry.

 

[patrick457]

St. Ephraem (Commentary on the Diatessaron):

They are, however, not to be compared and they agree in turn with the words of the apostles, because they did not write these gospels at the same time. For they did not receive this mandate, as Moses with the tablets, but just as the prophet had said: I will give them a covenant of testament, not like this, but I will put my law in their minds and I will write it in their hearts. Opportunities have both summoned and written them. Matthew the Hebrew wrote this, and behold it was turned into Greek. Mark, however, used to follow Simon, when they gained ground in the city Rome, so that they were perfectly recorded; lest they come to oblivion for a very long time, {the faithful} persuaded him, and he wrote whatever he learned. Luke, however, made the beginning from the baptism of John, for one spoke from his incarnation, and from his reign that is from David; the other truly began from Abraham. John came and found {various} opinions to be made known about their words that describe his genealogy, {to test to be sure} that he is human; he also wrote that he is not {so much} human but he is the word from the beginning. Matthew wrote the gospel in Hebrew, Mark in Latin from Simon in the city of Rome, Luke in Greek; John {at last} wrote it because he remained in the world until the time of Trajan.

St. Jerome (Prologue of the Four Gospels):

First of all is Matthew, a publican with the cognomen of Levi, who published a gospel in Judea in the Hebrew speech, especially on account of those who had believed in Jesus from among the Jews, and with the shadow of the law in no way succeeding he served the truth of the gospel. Second was Mark, interpreter of the apostle Peter and first bishop of the church of Alexandria, who did not actually see the Lord savior for himself, but narrated rather those things which he had heard the master preaching according to faith rather than in the order of events. Third was Luke, a physician, Antiochene Syrian by nationality, whose praise is in the gospel, who, also himself a disciple of the apostle Paul, gave together the volume in parts of Achaia and Boeotia, repeating certain things more highly and, as he confessed in his preface, describing what he heard rather than what he saw. Last was John, apostle and evangelist, whom Jesus loved very much, who while reclining on the breast of the Lord drank the purest streams of his teachings and who alone deserved to hear from the cross: Behold, your mother. When he was in Asia and already then the seeds of the heretics were sprouting, of Cerinthus, of Ebion, and of the rest, who deny that Christ came in the flesh, whom he himself in his epistle calls antichrists and the apostle Paul frequently strikes at, he was then urged by almost all the bishops of Asia and by the delegates of many churches to write more highly concerning the divinity of the savior and to break forth unto the very word of God, so to speak, not so much boldly as with happy chance, as the Ecclesiastical History narrates. When he was coaxed by the brethren to write, [it is said that] he responded that he would do so if a fast would be indicated in common and all would pray to God. When it was brought about he burst out, saturated with revelation, in that prologue which comes from heaven: In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and this word was God. This was in the beginning with God.

St. Jerome (Letter to Pope Damasus):

Certainly, I do not discuss the Old Testament, which came from the Seventy Elders in the Greek language, changing in three steps until it arrived with us. Nor do I seek what Aquila, or what Symmachus may think, or why Theodotion may walk the middle of the road between old and new. This may be the true translation which the Apostles have approved. I now speak of the New Testament, which is undoubtedly Greek, except the Apostle Matthew, who had first set forth the Gospel of Christ in Hebrew letters in Judea. This (Testament) certainly differs in our language, and is led in the way of different streams; it is necessary to seek the single fountainhead.

Pseudo-Athanasius (Synopsis of Sacred Scripture):

The gospel according to Matthew was written by Matthew himself in the Hebrew dialect and was published in Jerusalem, but translated by James the brother of the Lord according to the flesh, who was appointed bishop by the holy apostles in Jerusalem. The gospel according to Mark was dictated by Peter the apostle in Rome, but published by Mark the blessed apostle and proclaimed by him in Alexandria and in Egypt and in Pentapolis and Libya. The gospel according to Luke was dictated by Paul the apostle, but written down and published by Luke the blessed apostle and physician, just as Peter the apostle also likewise dictated the Acts of the Apostles, but Luke himself wrote [them] down. The gospel according to John was dictated by himself, the holy John the apostle and beloved one, when he was banished to the island of Patmos, and published by him in Ephesus through Gaius the beloved and host of the apostles, about whom Paul too, writing to the Romans, said: Gaius the host of me and the entire church greets you.

 

[patrick457]

St. Augustine (The Harmony of the Gospels 1.2):

Of these four, it is true, only Matthew is reckoned to have written in the Hebrew language; the others in Greek. And however they may appear to have kept each of them a certain order of narration proper to himself, this certainly is not to be taken as if each individual writer chose to write in ignorance of what his predecessor had done, or left out as matters about which there was no information things which another nevertheless is discovered to have recorded. But the fact is, that just as they received each of them the gift of inspiration, they abstained from adding to their several labours any superfluous conjoint compositions.

And I have probably linked to it once, but have you read [this article?](Clement of Alexandria on the “Order” of the Gospels) If so, what are your thoughts on it?

 

[patrick457]

Orchard’s solution was in complete conformity with the internal evidence, the records of all the ancient historians and with church tradition.

Not totally, no, at least for me.

Also why archaeologists have found two versions of Mark’s Gospel.

Archaeologists have hardly found “two versions of Mark’s Gospel.” I take it that it is probably a reference to the Mar Saba Letter purportedly penned by Clement of Alexandria which speaks of a more ‘spiritual’ version of Mark (and which contains two excerpts from this supposed gospel). The main problem however is whether the letter itself is genuine: some have raised the possibility that it was a forgery by the man who claimed to have found it (handwritten on the back of a 17th century book), Morton Smith - who made much of his discovery. But even if we grant that the letter is indeed not a modern forgery, there still remains the question as to whether it is an ancient forgery: for all we know it is also equally likely to have been written by someone in ancient times using Clement’s name.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

patrick457: where do you think Orchard gets things wrong?

 

[JimG]

It would seem that Q is already in the canon. It has, after all, only a literary existence: it consists of things that are found in Matthew and Luke but not in Mark. So it’s already there. But it never has been and never will be a real document.

 

[Erich]

Archaeologists have hardly found “two versions of Mark’s Gospel.” I take it that it is probably a reference to the Mar Saba Letter purportedly penned by Clement of Alexandria which speaks of a more ‘spiritual’ version of Mark (and which contains two excerpts from this supposed gospel). The main problem however is whether the letter itself is genuine: some have raised the possibility that it was a forgery by the man who claimed to have found it (handwritten on the back of a 17th century book), Morton Smith - who made much of his discovery. But even if we grant that the letter is indeed not a modern forgery, there still remains the question as to whether it is an ancient forgery: for all we know it is also equally likely to have been written by someone in ancient times using Clement’s name.

I am not referring to the Mar Saba letter.

Clement of Alexandria tells us: “The audience, which was numerous, begged Mark …to write down the things he [Peter] had said. And he did so …”. Mark, as Peter’s secretary, would have had a team of scribes. So he would have been able to quickly publish this short record of Peter’s words. We are told that Peter showed little interest but, from another book by Clement, we know that when Peter became aware of its favourable reception, he approved it for use in the churches.

This indicates that Mark’s short Gospel was published in two editions – an unauthorized informal one and a second endorsed by Peter for use in the churches. Clement informs us that Mark issued the words of Peter while Peter was still alive, yet Irenaeus says that Mark published after the death of Peter. This again points to there having been two editions.

Most of the early copies of Mark are as we have them today. But some have been found where the last twelve verses are replaced by:

But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation ((RSV)).

Today we often see an edition of a talk circulated without the answers to any questions. Then, after a time, an edition including the answers is published. On other occasions the first edition includes the answers, but they are omitted in the second

There is historical evidence this occurred with Mark’s gospel. Early copies of Mark’s Gospel have been found with the last twelve verses replaced by a short ending. Clement of Alexandria tells us that Mark first issued Peter’s words while Peter was still alive. Irenaeus informs us that Mark published after the death of Peter.

As Peter authorized both editions, both were circulated but the one with the answers became the most popular.

 

[Erich]

What then do you make of this (The Harmony of the Gospels, 1.2.1)?

About 180 Ireneaus familiar with the Matthew-Luke-Mark sequence.
About 200 First Latin translations (prologues). Matthew-John-Luke-Mark sequence.
About 200 Clement of Alexandria says gospels of Matthew and Luke written first.
About 212 Tertullian uses Luke prior to Mark sequence.
About 250 Origen popularises Matthew-Mark-Luke sequence.
312-323 Eusebius writes his Ecclesiastical History’. About 380 Augustine accepts Matthew-Mark-Luke sequence as received`.
About 383 Jerome uses this sequence for his New Testament (The Vulgate).
About 420 Augustine judges that Matthew and Luke wrote prior to Mark.

And where in book four does Augustine explain “that Mark’s Gospel developed the thoughts of Matthew and Luke, so confirming that Luke wrote before Mark”?

Recall that I was quoting The Authors of the Gospels. The references identify “((AH 4 Book 4:10, 11 and RO 211-214))” as the source of this explanation; the abbreviations are “decoded” as follows:

AH Modern Catholicism by Adrian Hastings, 1991.
AH1 Harmony of the Gospels by Augustine of Hippo, book 1 (web EP 445)
AH4 Harmony of the Gospels by Augustine of Hippo, book 4 (web EP 447)
RO The Order of the Synoptics by H. Riley and B. Orchard, 1987

 

[Erich]

When the earliest writers speak of Matthew writing his Gospel first, interestingly they usually speak of his ‘Hebrew’ gospel - not the Greek one.

From Chapter IX of The Authors of the Gospels:

Eusebius quoting Papias wrote, “Matthew collected the oracles [logia or sayings] in the Hebrew language/style”. ((EH 3: 39.16)). Quoting Irenaeus Eusebius wrote, ”Now Matthew published among the Hebrews a written gospel also in their own tongue/ dialect”. ((EH. 5: 8, 2)). Kirsopp Lake in a footnote to his translation explains that the word also indicates that Matthews Gospel also had a spoken form. Markans reject the evidence of Eusebius as unreliable because it challenges their theory. Most Markans assert that it is not possible to back-translate Matthews Greek Gospel into Hebrew. Yet they have no evidence for this assertion. The Pontifical Biblical Commission in 1912 stated that this assertion did not undermine the words of Eusebius.

In recent years two Frenchmen have thrown more light on this question. Jean Carmignac, a specialist in Greek and Hebrew, spent eleven years from 1943 translating The Book of Chronicles. Then from 1954-63 he was engaged in translating manuscripts from the Qumran caves, otherwise known as The Dead Sea Scrolls. Although his work was mainly concerned with the Old Testament, he noticed several interesting connections with the New.

So in 1963 he attempted to translate a Greek Gospel back into the form of Hebrew used at Qumran. Carmignac was absolutely dumbfounded to find how easy it proved to be. Realising his translation would meet with ferocious criticism from Markan priorists, he searched in the old monastic libraries of Europe to see if the translation had been attempted previously. In this way he also hoped to correct and improve his own work. Although he lacked the time to make a thorough search, he soon found sixty translations of Gospels or portions of them. Some were by Rabbis who had become Christians and others by Rabbis wishing to dispute with Christians.

Carmignac had not completed the writing of his scholarly findings but was aging. So his friends persuaded him to write a small book for the general public, which appeared in 1987. He not only wrote that Matthew`s Gospel was the first to be written, but that it was in Hebrew. He could also see a Hebrew substratum in the other two synoptic Gospels.

According to him, the order of composition was a Hebrew Matthew followed by a Greek Luke, and then by a Greek Mark. In order to conform to Markan priority, he presumed there must have been an earlier Hebrew version of Mark, which Mark later translated. If we ignore this presumption, his work dovetails with the Clementine tradition of Matthew-Luke-Mark. He dates Greek Mark as before 70 AD, so Matthew and Luke also before that date.

In 1953 Claude Tresmontant, a French Hebrew scholar, published a book dedicated to Hebrew thought. He then worked for many years to produce a Hebrew-Greek dictionary. While doing this he was overwhelmed by how easy it was to back-translate the Gospels into Hebrew. In his 1980 Le Christ Hebreu [English translation 1989], he explained in detail the Hebrew basis for the Gospels. He formed the opinion that Matthew in both Hebrew and Greek could be dated as having been written soon after the Resurrection, Luke between 40-60 AD, with Mark 50-60 AD. ((CTH 324)). While not confirming the Clementine order, it allowed its possibility.

Tresmontant detected a Hebrew substructure to Marks Gospel. At first sight this appears to conflict with the normally accepted view that Mark recorded Peter speaking in Greek. But, according to Orchard, over 90% of the talks by Peter consisted of him quoting from Matthew and Luke. So the Hebrew substructure of these quotations would automatically be carried into his talks. The additions made by Peter would also possess a strong Semitic tone because Peter was a native Aramaic speaker. J Kurzinger has shown that the word of Papias regarding Matthews Gospel would be best rendered as style. ((RO 128-9)). This would be a good description of a Greek document written with a Hebrew substructure.

When discussing Semitisms in the Gospels, Carmignac and Tresmontant accepted that many could be explained as a Greek author borrowing familiar Hebrew words. It would have been easy for the translator to carry over some Hebrew words. But the Hebrew sub-structure pointed out by Carmagnac and Tresmontant is of a different kind.

 

[Erich]

(cont’d)

Hebrew likes wordplay and takes great pleasure in using similar sounds to assist memorisation. In Matthew 3: 9 we read of stones and children. In Greek and English there is no linguistic connection to assist memorisation. But in Hebrew it reads as abanim, and banim ((CTH 64)). In Matthew 9:16 the tear (qera) becomes worse (ra). In Matthew 13: 6 shemesh (sun) is linked phonetically to the word for root (shoresh). In Matthew 21:12, shulehanot (tables) is similar to shulehanim (changers). ((JC 29)).

Hebrew Matthew in 26: 38 probably used the words imdu (stay) and immadi (with me). The word immadi was translated into Greek, and therefore into English versions. This is acceptable in English but superfluous in the Greek language ((JC 30)). It is interesting that Peter, reading a Greek copy of Matthew and speaking in Greek, omits it (Mark 14: 34). We may ask Markan priorists why Matthew, if writing in Greek at the end of the first century, adds a superfluous Greek word.

Translators and copyists are liable to make small errors, and these show when we compare the Gospels. It is necessary to point out here that the use of small dots or dashes in Hebrew are not aids to pronunciation, as they are in some languages. In Hebrew they signified completely different letters. Many apparent discrepancies between the Gospels may be explained if we accept that Matthews Gospel was originally in Hebrew. In Matthew 22: 19 we read show me a coin, while Mark 12:15 has bring me a denarius`. But in Hebrew a coin is HBW and a denarius is HRW.

In Hebrew only a small difference distinguishes B and R from one another, so could easily have been misread when being translated into Greek ((JC 32)).

Matthew 13:17 has, the just or righteous men, but Luke 10: 24 has kings. As the just corresponds to WYSRYM and kings to WSRYM, and as the symbols for W and Y are very close, we are able to see how easy it would have been to read W in place of Y. Misreading the word king for just in Greek would be unimaginable ((JC 33)).

In the previous chapter, we noted that some Hebrew theological concepts present in Matthew’s Gospel would be alien to Greek thought. Here we may note some of the more common Hebrew words and expressions used by Matthew but not by Greeks: Beelzebub, Woe, Flesh and Blood, deliver into the hands, hardness of heart, to set one`s face. Why would a Greek use these if not translating from the Hebrew? These words are not used by Luke or Mark ((CTH 67-71, 90-92 and 112)).

Tresmontant has pointed out that a Hebrew-Greek Lexicon had to be produced when the Old Testament was translated into Greek (the Septuagint). He holds the opinion that the Christians used the same lexicon in New Testament times. On both occasions the translators were worried about losing the full meaning, so tended to transcribe word for word, even though this could produce a Greek which did not flow well.

So the evidence produced by Carmagnac, Tresmontant, and at least sixty Rabbis, is that the Gospel according to Matthew was first written in Hebrew. The examples supplied here are just a few of the many provided by the two French authors. This is in full accord with the historical records of Papias and Irenaeus, which say a Hebrew version for the Jews of Palestine was composed first. A Greek version appeared when converts were gained amongst those who could speak Greek only.

Although these two Frenchmen firmly agreed that the Synoptic Gospels were written pre-70 AD, they did not take a stand on the sequence in which they were composed. But it is interesting that Tresmontant refers to them in the order of Matthew-Luke-Mark four times on one page of his writings ((CTG 14)). As they have shown that Papias and Ireneaus were correct to report that Matthew`s Gospel was first written in Hebrew, confidence in the other information these historians provide, is greatly increased.

 

[TOME]

I believe Thistle is correct, if the “Q” source was found in a jar somewhere it would not be considered canonical for the reason she gave, namely, Trent closed the Canon. Also, it wouldn’t meet some other criteria for canonical books (e.x. it was never used in the liturgies - that we know of).

However, I would welcome such a find not only because of its obvious historical and scholarly value but because I happen to believe that the theory of a “Q” souce is a very reasonable Hypothesis when it comes to answering questions arising from the differences we find between the gospels of Matthew and Luke with the gospel of Mark. Also, I think this hypothesis helps answer many of the questions about the differences we find between Luke and Matthew as well.

I think many in this forum, in general, and those who have contributed threads to this post, in particular, would be amazed to know both Raymond E. Brown and John P. Meier wrote that “Q” was nothing more than a hypothesis and **it could not be **proven to exist. Still they found it to be useful, and I would add reasonable, in helping to answer or atleast give plausible explanations to some of the questions I mentioned above.

 

[Petergee]

I believe Thistle is correct, if the “Q” source was found in a jar somewhere it would not be considered canonical for the reason she gave, namely, Trent closed the Canon.

And yet again I ask, please give a reference to Trent (or any other council or pope) stating definitively that the Canon of the Bible is perpetually closed and no future Pope or council is permitted to add anything to it?

Also, it wouldn’t meet some other criteria for canonical books (e.x. it was never used in the liturgies - that we know of).

Where do we find these “criteria” stated in Catholic doctrine? And when and where has, say, the Third Letter of St John, or the book of Obadiah, been used in the liturgies (I presume you mean in radings at Mass).?

However, I would welcome such a find not only because of its obvious historical and scholarly value but because I happen to believe that the theory of a “Q” souce is a very reasonable Hypothesis when it comes to answering questions arising from the differences we find between the gospels of Matthew and Luke with the gospel of Mark. Also, I think this hypothesis helps answer many of the questions about the differences we find between Luke and Matthew as well.

I think many in this forum, in general, and those who have contributed threads to this post, in particular, would be amazed to know both Raymond E. Brown and John P. Meier wrote that “Q” was nothing more than a hypothesis and **it could not be **proven to exist. Still they found it to be useful, and I would add reasonable, in helping to answer or atleast give plausible explanations to some of the questions I mentioned above.

I think the hypothesised existence of “Q” actually creates many more problems than it answers.

 

[thistle]

And yet again I ask, please give a reference to Trent (or any other council or pope) stating definitively that the Canon of the Bible is perpetually closed and no future Pope or council is permitted to add anything to it?

Where do we find these “criteria” stated in Catholic doctrine? And when and where has, say, the Third Letter of St John, or the book of Obadiah, been used in the liturgies (I presume you mean in radings at Mass).?

I think the hypothesised existence of “Q” actually creates many more problems than it answers.

I asked my old priest friend about this. This is his reply:

"The Deposit of Faith was fully revealed through Jesus. The OT which was a partial revelation of God’s truth was completed with the coming of Jesus. The Canon is the list of the Biblical Books authoritatively recognized by the Church as inspired and normative for its teaching and practice. If part of the Deposit of Faith revealed fully in Jesus, has remained unrecognized, hence omitted from the Canon, then for 2000 years the Church has been deprived of a part of the full Deposit of Faith. This is ridiculous as Divine Providence would never have allowed it.

So there can be no new addition to the listed books of the Bible which constitute the established Canon."

 

[Petergee]

I asked my old priest friend about this. This is his reply:

"The Deposit of Faith was fully revealed through Jesus. The OT which was a partial revelation of God’s truth was completed with the coming of Jesus. The Canon is the list of the Biblical Books authoritatively recognized by the Church as inspired and normative for its teaching and practice. If part of the Deposit of Faith revealed fully in Jesus, has remained unrecognized, hence omitted from the Canon, then for 2000 years the Church has been deprived of a part of the full Deposit of Faith. This is ridiculous as Divine Providence would never have allowed it.

So there can be no new addition to the listed books of the Bible which constitute the established Canon."

With respect to your old priest friend, it is not correct to say that the recognised books of the Bible contain all of the full deposit of faith. Many truths taught by the Church are not found explicitly stated in the Bible.

 

[TOME]

Petergee,

First I am interested in why you hold that the “… hypothesised existence of “Q” actually creates many more problems than it answers” ?

Because I feel this is not the proper place to discuss how the dogmas and decrees of one council are binding on the popes and councils that follow, I am just going to say that the Decree on Scripture issued by the Council of Trent is binding on the Church - even today and will be for all times. Perhaps this would be a good question for “Ask an Apologist”.

The Canon of Scripture developed into its present form from the first letters of Paul were written down and sent to a particular church or person through the seminal letter of Athanasius (his Festal Letter of 367 AD #39 which he gives the list of “canonical” books) to the Council of Hippo in 393 AD which gives the same list of the books of sacred scripture Athanasius presented 26 years earlier. This is the list that was finalized by Trent. I would suggest you read the works of Origen, Athanatius, Jerome and Augustine in how the 72 books of the canon were accepted. I would also suggest you read the histories of the; Council of Hippo (393 AD), Council of Carthage (397 AD), Council of Florence (1442 AD) and the Council of Trent (1546 AD). I don’t have all these histories or works in front of me and I am not very good at cutting and pasting so the best I can do is give you these references.

However, using the work of the late Raymond E. Brown S.S., “Introduction to the New Testament” (pages 10 - 15) he gives 3 criteria by which a book was accepted as an “Inspired Book”:
1. Apostolic Origin, real or putative.
2. Importance of the addressed of the Christian Community. (This is where the use of
a particular becomes a factor)
3. Conformity with their rule of faith.

 

[Petergee]

Tome, I put it to you that my question sticks more closely to the topic of this thread than yours does.

The question is, IF “Q” (or by implication any other similar newly discovered ancient book) were to be discovered, would and could it be added to the Bible? My question goes to the heart of that issue.

Whether such a document as “Q” ever did actually exist, and the evidence for and against its proposed existence, is peripheral to this issue.

But to answer your question, the reasons for my comment about Q are essentially covered in the recent comments on this thread.

 

[thistle]

Tome, I put it to you that my question sticks more closely to the topic of this thread than yours does.

The question is, IF “Q” (or by implication any other similar newly discovered ancient book) were to be discovered, would and could it be added to the Bible? My question goes to the heart of that issue.

Whether such a document as “Q” ever did actually exist, and the evidence for and against its proposed existence, is peripheral to this issue.

But to answer your question, the reasons for my comment about Q are essentially covered in the recent comments on this thread.

Trent formally defined the Canon. It does not have to say that means no books can ever be added because that is self evident by defining the canon.

 

[Petergee]

Trent formally defined the Canon. It does not have to say that means no books can ever be added because that is self evident by defining the canon.

No, what Trent actually said, see bible-researcher.com/trent1.html
was to list the books that it recognised and solemnly anathematise anyone who rejected any of these. There is no anathema, indeed no mention, of what was its attitude to adding any books to the list. And yes they certainly would have anathematised such a thing if they wished to prevent it, for that was the fashion of words that they used.

 

[thistle]

No, what Trent actually said, see bible-researcher.com/trent1.html
was to list the books that it recognised and solemnly anathematise anyone who rejected any of these. There is no anathema, indeed no mention, of what was its attitude to adding any books to the list. And yes they certainly would have anathematised such a thing if they wished to prevent it, for that was the fashion of words that they used.

You are entitled to your opinion albeit everyone here disagrees with you.

The Canon was closed at Trent. End of story.

 

[TOME]

Petergee,

I hope you understand that I just did not want to get into a discussion about how the dogmas and decrees of one council are binding on the Church there after.

I am afraid that I have to rely on what I was taught about the Council of Trent closing the Canon of Scripture once and for all. However, I do feel confident that this position is the correct one given that such diverse scholars such as Thomas Bokenkotter, Richard P McBrien and Raymond E. Brown all stated this is the case.

I do acknowledge that someone like John D. Crossan would argue that there are books outside the “Canon” that should be accepted as canonical, however, outside those of the Jesus Seminar, I know of no one who teaches that there is a possibility of additions to the canon. If someone, besides yourself, holds this opinion and openly teaches it I would be interested in knowing who he or she is because I am sure they would present some interesting arguments. But again, I have to go by what I was taught and hold that Trent finalized the Canon and no books can ever be added.