T
thistle
Guest
- In other words nobody in this thread agrees with you.
- The Canon was defined at Trent whatever word gymnastics you try to play.
- My point is that the Canon is CLOSED and there will never be a book added to it.
- Status
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
James Akin doesn’t believe the canon is closed.
E
Erich
Guest
Really? Because in this video he explains the criteria the early Christians used to determine what books belong in the Bible (starting around the 2:52 mark):
- “what have we been using in the Liturgy all this time?” (i.e. if someone came up with a book that had *not *been used in the liturgy, but just dropped out of nowhere, the Church Fathers wouldn’t have had anything to do with it, even if it had good doctrine.)
- “is this in agreement with traditional doctrine?” (i.e. if a particular doctrine that a particular book taught did not agree with the doctrine that had been passed down, the book was not accepted – even if everything else in that book was completely orthodox.)
So… in answer to the OP – and also in answer to whether the canon is officially closed or not – I find it hard to believe that if the (hypothetical) Q document were to be discovered in a buried jar in a cave, it would be added to the canon accepted by the Church. For one thing, it’s kind of hard for such a document to have been used in the Liturgy if it were sealed in a jar and buried in a cave all this time!
Of course, I say “hypothetical” because, as The Authors of the Gospels puts it: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.Markans describe the period between the time of Christ and the writing of the Gospels as
A long dark tunnel. Groups of dedicated Markans have spent years, at the expense of Universities, looking for Q and its author in this darkness. According to the historians and those who accept the Jerome or Clementine traditions, the period was short. The long is not a fact, but a further creation by Markans to bolster their theory. It is true that the Markans are working in a long dark tunnel. This is because they refuse to turn on the lights provided by the historians.The Markans call the anonymous authors they have invented, by the names of actual people (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John). This makes them sound familiar, real and comforting but, if the Markans are correct, more appropriate names would be Saints Tom, Dick, Harry and Janette, while not forgetting the venerable
Q. I have no wish to be facetious, but it is necessary to be blunt in order to bring home an important point. The use of familiar names to describe unknown alleged authors, emotionally clouds a clear understanding of what Markan priorists wish us to believe. I am not surprised when non-Christians are unconvinced by the Markan way of explaining the truth of Christianity.Irenaeus, Eusebius, Tertullian and others had travelled throughout the Roman Empire, and were well educated, so why did they have no knowledge of the alleged anonymous authors or
Q? Why were all the ancient historians and theologians completely ignorant of the great saints who had, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, produced the greatest writings of mankind? Also, why did they all come to believe that they were written by the same four other authors?
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
I read an article where James Akin said that it MIGHT be possible that the Canon is not closed.
He said for it not to be closed all the following things would have to happen:
The Orthodox and the Catholic church would have to reunite.
The only possible books that could possibly be added to the Canon would be 3d and 4th Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh because those books were part of the Vulgate as an appendix–in other words they are the Catholic apocrypha.
And if the Catholic church and Orthodox Church united it could be claimed that those particular books had been used in the liturgy of the Orthodox church since the beginning(the orthodox church supposedly though schismatic would still have always been part of the Catholic Church.
There would have to be a theological question that could be addressed by these books.
The Holy Spirit would have to lead the united Catholic Church into adding them–and of course the Pope would have to agree.
In other words Akin is saying that the chances of ALL that happening is infintessimal but not impossible.
I tend to agree.
In my mind the ONLY books that could POSSIBLY be added would be 3d and 4th Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh and ALL the above things would have to happen.
In other words I think the canon is 99.9999999999999999999999999% closed.
He said for it not to be closed all the following things would have to happen:
The Orthodox and the Catholic church would have to reunite.
The only possible books that could possibly be added to the Canon would be 3d and 4th Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh because those books were part of the Vulgate as an appendix–in other words they are the Catholic apocrypha.
And if the Catholic church and Orthodox Church united it could be claimed that those particular books had been used in the liturgy of the Orthodox church since the beginning(the orthodox church supposedly though schismatic would still have always been part of the Catholic Church.
There would have to be a theological question that could be addressed by these books.
The Holy Spirit would have to lead the united Catholic Church into adding them–and of course the Pope would have to agree.
In other words Akin is saying that the chances of ALL that happening is infintessimal but not impossible.
I tend to agree.
In my mind the ONLY books that could POSSIBLY be added would be 3d and 4th Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh and ALL the above things would have to happen.
In other words I think the canon is 99.9999999999999999999999999% closed.
R
rdscheirer
Guest
Q has been found in the caves in Israel, they are just trying to dechipher the magnitude of what the translation will tell you
ll
ll
T
thistle
Guest
Don’t tell me. Its Q from Star Trek!!
P
Petergee
Guest
What about 3 & 4 Maccabees and Psalm 151?
I’ve never heard anyone claim that there’s anything in them that’s not in accordance with Traditional doctrine.
Anyway don’t Eastern-rite Catholics use them in their liturgies?
I
Ignatius
Guest
No, we don’t.
P
Petergee
Guest
Are you speaking just for your own Church, or are you saying that you know that it’s the case that none of the Catholic Churches ever uses any book which was not listed by Trent?
I
Ignatius
Guest
As far as I have been able to find out, neither any of the churches Sui Juris nor the Ortodox use them in the Divine Liturgy.
F
Fr_of_Jazz
Guest
Assuming ex hypothesi the two-source theory and Q, if Q were found, we would be in the same position as Mt and Lk, who under inspiration would have selected from Q “everything and only those things which God wanted.” (DV, #11)
P
patrick457
Guest
Glad to see the thread has been more or less brought back on-topic again. 
And to Ms. (?) Erich: I’ll try to reply to your last posts, if not in this thread (I kind of hate to spoil this mood now), then in PM, as soon as I can.
And to Ms. (?) Erich: I’ll try to reply to your last posts, if not in this thread (I kind of hate to spoil this mood now), then in PM, as soon as I can.
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
patrick457: Speculate: if Q did exist who wrote Q?
F
Fr_of_Jazz
Guest
Thanks, Patrick. God bless.Glad to see the thread has been more or less brought back on-topic again.
And to Ms. (?) Erich: I’ll try to reply to your last posts, if not in this thread (I kind of hate to spoil this mood now), then in PM, as soon as I can.
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
If “sayings Gospels” are actually copies of copies of parts of letters that circulated from “on the spot reporters” in the form of disciples following Jesus around, then “Q” is likely to be one or more of those. Do we have a link to a collection of Q passages?
It was explained to me some years ago by a priest online that the Canon can never be closed. Ever. That’s because we cannot guarantee we will not find a something that needs inclusion, including some writing that can somehow be attributed directly to Jesus.
The likelihood of that happening is more than extremely remote, of course, but technically, the Canon cannot be closed.
T
tafan
Guest
I think I disagree with the priest’s comments. I don’t think the Church has ever stated it is closed, but logic would lead one to assume that is the case; even beyond the “extremely remote” likihood.
All public revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle; we know this. So we can rule out anything written concerning events after that point in time. When the canon was officially set forth, the reliance on Tradition was used to qualify the books. Simply put, was there a book, which has been used as part of the Tradition of the Church as scripture. This is key. We might find something very interesting, very old, whatever; but we know it was not used as part of the tradition of the church. So how can it not be closed?
As to the theory of Q being found; is not the Q theory becoming less and less credible amoung biblical scholars?
G
Gorgias
Guest
I think that’s the exact “loophole” that’s in play here: if Q exists, then it is part of the Tradition by virtue of its inclusion in Matthew and Luke. However, if we were to find a document that could be “proven” to be Q, then we’d have an interesting situation: it’d be a document that’d be both canonical and extra-canonical at the same time!
So… could we take the document in its entirety and include it in the canon? (There are two separate questions, of course, depending on whether the document in its entirety is already in the canon or not…)
T
tafan
Guest
I think not, because even if Q exists, it being the source of the document might make much of what it contains part of tradition; but not the document itself.
It might have lots of things in it that are not included in the other Gospels. It would never be considered as part of the canon. And if all of it is in the existing Gospels, it would then be incomplete, leaving out things that may affect interpretation.
The book itself has not been part of Tradition, we know this. So it cannot be added to the canon.
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
He wasn’t giving me an opinion, he was speaking to educate.
First, the letters in the NT are not public revelations. Second, we don’t know if more public revelation is coming. Third, we don’t know if there is more evidence to be found that was created before the deaths of the Apostles.
Not that I’ve ever seen, in fact, it seems to have become the default belief. . Do you have some evidence to the contrary that comes from scholars and not just people like us opining online?
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
I don’t think this statement is a reflection of fact: When the canon was officially set forth, the reliance on Tradition was used to qualify the books.
There were a great many writings being used over the centuries in spreading the Gospel and determining how to interpret Divine Revelation. Those are all part of Tradition, as we know, because they are still used by the Church in promulgating Dogma and doctrine. But they weren’t all included. The standard came to be, as I understand it, whether the writing was attributed to one of the original 12 Apostles or to the Apostle Paul.
By that standard, a document found that contains writings consistent with what is in the final version of one of the Gospels, or a letter Paul wrote, confidently dated to the 1st century, would fit that criterion for inclusion.
- Status