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

[Gorgias]

Maybe this is a question that’s better asked in another thread, but let’s extend the thought experiment a bit further:

Suppose a document was found that scholars came to understand was the “Q source”. (Or a written version of an oral Q tradition, however you want to frame it up.) How would that document be received? Would it contribute in any way to our understanding? Of what value would it be? What might its composition be?

 

[thistle]

Maybe this is a question that’s better asked in another thread, but let’s extend the thought experiment a bit further:

Suppose a document was found that scholars came to understand was the “Q source”. (Or a written version of an oral Q tradition, however you want to frame it up.) How would that document be received? Would it contribute in any way to our understanding? Of what value would it be? What might its composition be?

It may or may not be interesting. It may or may not be informative.
However, it would never become part of the Canon.

 

[Gorgias]

It may or may not be interesting. It may or may not be informative.
However, it would never become part of the Canon.

:banghead:

Thanks for not answering the questions I asked, and answering the question I didn’t ask…

 

[thistle]

:banghead:

Thanks for not answering the questions I asked, and answering the question I didn’t ask…

I know but it looked like that is what you were leading up to so I cut to the bottom line!

 

[Petergee]

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

The Canon was closed at Trent. End of story.

Well It’s obvious that you disagree with me, but I don’t see what qualifies you to speak on behalf of “everyone”.

How about attempting to respond to the point I made in post 137, instead of just saying in effect “I’m right and everyone agrees with me and that’s all there is to it so just shut up”?

By the way, you may be interested to know that in our diocese, our (unquestionably orthodox) bishop has ordered a lot of Bibles and has directed they be sold at a cheap price at all the churches of the diocese and he is urging all the Catholic faithful to buy, read and study them. The Bibles contain several other books in addition to those listed by Trent. (he has not explained exactly why he chose this Bible but he says that it is the best.)

 

[thistle]

Well It’s obvious that you disagree with me, but I don’t see what qualifies you to speak on behalf of “everyone”.

How about attempting to respond to the point I made in post 137, instead of just saying in effect “I’m right and everyone agrees with me and that’s all there is to it so just shut up”?

By the way, you may be interested to know that in our diocese, our (unquestionably orthodox) bishop has ordered a lot of Bibles and has directed they be sold at a cheap price at all the churches of the diocese and he is urging all the Catholic faithful to buy, read and study them. The Bibles contain several other books in addition to those listed by Trent. (he has not explained exactly why he chose this Bible but he says that it is the best.)

As to your first point who else in this thread agrees with you?

Second point. You are wrong. Trent did not have to say no other books can be added because they defined the Canon which by definition means no other books can be added.

As to your last paragraph I have to admit I am at a loss as to what that has to do with our discussion. However, I am curious as to what Bible it is. I assume you know and can tell us. Hard to make a comment until we know that!!

 

[Gorgias]

I know but it looked like that is what you were leading up to so I cut to the bottom line!

LOL! No, we’ve beaten that one to death sufficiently already. So, considering that “the canon is closed”, I figured that this was the one remaining interesting set of questions – given that it couldn’t become part of the canon, what reaction would it prompt? what role might it play in theology or in our faith lives? like I said… just a thought experiment!

 

[thistle]

LOL! No, we’ve beaten that one to death sufficiently already. So, considering that “the canon is closed”, I figured that this was the one remaining interesting set of questions – given that it couldn’t become part of the canon, what reaction would it prompt? what role might it play in theology or in our faith lives? like I said… just a thought experiment!

I suspect no more than any other known writing which was excluded from the Canon but considered a writing still worthy of reading. For example, the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians.
earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-lightfoot.html

 

[bmullins]

If Q were found… if it even exists… wouldn’t it already be Canon? If it is really what they surmise it is, a document that was used to write the current ones we have then most of it would already be in there.

The problem is if we found a document somewhere and it disagreed with scripture, we would likely reject it as apocryphal. If we found one that agreed 100% with scripture, then there would be no reason to add it to canon because it would already be there.

 

[steve53]

I suspect the Pope could do whatever he wanted if an authentic ancient papyrus of “Q” surfaced, and it was authenticated.
Open a new council? Especially if the Cardinals agreed with him.

If the Q had other stuff and was revolutionary in nature, without question an offshoot to the Catholic Church would be spawned if it was ignored or downplayed by the Vatican.

 

[thistle]

I suspect the Pope could do whatever he wanted if an authentic ancient papyrus of “Q” surfaced, and it was authenticated.
Open a new council? Especially if the Cardinals agreed with him.

If the Q had other stuff and was revolutionary in nature, without question an offshoot to the Catholic Church would be spawned if it was ignored or downplayed by the Vatican.

There is no “Q”. It doesn’t exist. Q is simply wild speculation plucked out of the air.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

If the Orthodox reunited with the Catholic Church could the Catholic apocrypha be added to the Canon?

 

[Gorgias]

If Q were found… if it even exists… wouldn’t it already be Canon? If it is really what they surmise it is, a document that was used to write the current ones we have then most of it would already be in there.

Wouldn’t it already be canon? I don’t know – I guess I’m envisioning another Dead Sea Scrolls type of event, where newly discovered material pops up unexpectedly.

The problem is if we found a document somewhere and it disagreed with scripture, we would likely reject it as apocryphal. If we found one that agreed 100% with scripture, then there would be no reason to add it to canon because it would already be there.

if we found the document, and it was “only” exactly the pieces gleaned from the Gospels, then it wouldn’t be worth much, from an academic standpoint. (I mean, it might be valuable to help prove Marcan priority, but that’s about it.) So, it would hopefully have other material as well. That would make it quite interesting: some would look at the other material and, as you have said, would reject it as apocryphal. Others would look at the new material and hope to use it to provide new insights. Would those “new insights” be added to the canon? I can’t see that happening, but it could be quite valuable in the quest to reach a better understanding of Jesus’ ministry.

But, would it be realistic to reject it as “apocryphal”? Not strictly out-of-hand, I don’t think. If scholars thought it was authentic, that would mean that its traditions (whether written or oral) would pre-date Matthew and Luke. (Of course, if they thought that the “extra material” was grafted on at a later date… well, there goes the requirement that it would be thought to be “authentic”, right?)

So, if something should pop up, and be thought authentic, I think it could add valuable insights for Scripture scholars…

 

[utunumsint]

Let’s assume that a) there was a document, Q, which was a source for the sayings quoted from Jesus by the authors of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke; and b) that there was nothing in Q which contradicted the Gospels or tradition.

If Q were to be discovered in a buried jar in a cave, would it then be added to the canon accepted by the Church? If it were to be added, how would this be done?

Based on the criteria in your question, if there was nothing in Q that added to or subtracted to Matthew of Luke, then we would already have Q in Matthew and Luke, therefore there would be no reason to add it to the cannon.

The same thing goes for Luke and Matthew unique source. (People make a big deal out of Q, but completely forget that there might be unique Matthew and Luke sources out there.)

So that leaves you with additions, which may or may not be in contradition to our existing scripture. If they were in accord with our scripture, we would have no need to add them, since they would already be covered in scripture. If they were in contradition to Scripture, then obviously we could not accept them, since those who produced the cannon did not accept them.

In my opinion, such a book would probably fall into the category of Tradition, in the same way that the church fathers fall under that category. We don’t consider Clement or Ignatius of Antioch inspired, but quotations from those two abound in the Catechism of the Catholic church.

Hope this helps,
God bless,
Ut

 

[TOME]

I have to agree with those who wisely pointed out that if a “Q” document was found what was contained in it would already be in the scriptures themselves. Also if such a single document was discovered I think it would be closer in its content and style to the 13 Coptic codices discovered at Nag Hammadi, Egypt in 1945.

I like what utunumsit hinted at, which is “Q” source may be more than just one document and I believe utunumsit is also pointing out that the “Q” source may also be partly oral traditions known to either Luke or Matthew or both.

I acknowledge that the “Q” source, whatever it might be, cannot be proven by fact but I don’t think it should be dismissed outright as fantasy. Too many very intelligent scholars have posited its possibility to be considered that it came about by someone unreasoned guess or is some nefarious plot against the Church of Rome.

 

[utunumsint]

Just to clarify:

1-Q is the material common to both Matthew and Luke.
2-Luke source is the material unique to Luke (not found in Matthew, Marc, or John).
3-Matthew source is the material unique to Matthew (not found in Luke, Marc, or John).

Because Q is found in both Matthew and Luke, it is likely that it was a written document of some sort. Luke and Matthew unique traditions may be written or more likely oral tradition known to each author independently from the other.

I’d would agree with TOME’s comment that there is nothing to be threatened by in Q, unique Luke, or unique Matthew. Q does not somehow supplant everything else said in unique Luke and unique Matthew. Those sources are equally important. And between the three of them, we have the full accounts of Matthew, Luke, and Marc. Windows into the life and teachings of our Lord.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Erich]

I acknowledge that the “Q” source, whatever it might be, cannot be proven by fact but I don’t think it should be dismissed outright as fantasy. Too many very intelligent scholars have posited its possibility to be considered that it came about by someone unreasoned guess or is some nefarious plot against the Church of Rome.

Actually, that’s not too far off the mark (no pun intended).

See churchinhistory.org/pages/booklets/farmer.pdf (in particular, pages 7-9 and 14-19).

 

[bmonk]

If Q is the source of the material common to Matthew and Luke but not Mark, it could contain other parts. For example, if Matthew and Luke used Mark, they also each left out parts of Mark–and they could likewise have left out parts of Q. So a written text identified as Q might well contain more material. Some could be in one or the other of Matthew and Luke, and some could be in neither. It’s that material we don’t know about as part of Q that might be critical.

I’m of the opinion that, were Q similar to what we have in the Gospels (or match other NT writings), it might be valuable, and possibly considered (in time, like 4 or 5 centuries) for inclusion in the Canon.

If it had a different theology, and was considered heretical, it would be like the other NT-era writings that were ultimately rejected, as a recent expert said about the Gospel of Judas, IIRC: “It was trash then [in the First and Second Centuries], and it’s still trash.”

But the strongest argument against Q, were it to be found, is that it has not been used and known for all these centuries. Why was it lost, or abandoned?

And, it can be of help to the scholars who study the New Testament, and even in shaping Church Tradition, without being in the Canon.

 

[Ignatius]

If the Orthodox reunited with the Catholic Church could the Catholic apocrypha be added to the Canon?

There is no “Catholic apocrypha”. Apocryphal books are those rejected by The Catholic Church as not being Canonical.

Protestants are generallly confused on the subject. What protestants mistakenly call the apocrypha are the 7 Deuterocanonical books which are part of the Greek Old Testament, used by Christ and The Apostles, that has always been included by The Church from the beginning. All of the ancient Apostolic Churches, including the Orthodox, recognize this.

 

[Petergee]

As to your first point who else in this thread agrees with you?

You and one or two others have disagreed with me. Many other posters have posted to this thread but have not addressed my question. No doubt many more have read it without commenting. And there are thousands of members of CAF. I hardly feel your small sample qualifies you to speak for “everyone”.

Second point. You are wrong. Trent did not have to say no other books can be added because they defined the Canon which by definition means no other books can be added.

But they didn’t “define the Canon”. They didn’t claim to “define the Canon”. Read the words that they said. They said these are the books that this synod receives.

As to your last paragraph I have to admit I am at a loss as to what that has to do with our discussion.

Your point seems to be that it is not permitted and even impossible for the Catholic Church to use any Bible which contains book/s other than those listed at Trent.

However, I am curious as to what Bible it is. I assume you know and can tell us. Hard to make a comment until we know that!!

It is “The New Revised Standard Version” 1989, American Bible Society, New York.
The “extra” books are 1 & 2 Esdras, 3 & 4 Maccabees, Prayer of Manasseh and Psalm 151.