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

Hokomai · #1 Dec 3, '11, 11:52 pm

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?

MarcoPolo · #2 Dec 4, '11, 12:02 am

It depends on whether or not the Spirit guided the Church to discern such a "document" as divinely inspired. As it is, your question is quite hypothetical because "Q" is not known to exist, and even the theories of it, as I understand, do not necessarily suggest it is a single text but could be orally transmitted as well.

thistle · #3 Dec 4, '11, 2:31 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hokomai

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?

The Canon was CLOSED at Trent.

Second, Q does not exist and it never has existed. It is pure unfounded speculation on the part of some and there is ZERO evidence to support such a claim.

Marocchino · #4 Dec 4, '11, 2:58 am

The documentary hypothesis - and historical criticism in general - is a superfluous theory in light of the perennial Catholic dogmas of divine inspiration and biblical inerrancy.

Zenkai · #5 Dec 4, '11, 10:26 am

It wouldn't be accepted because it doesn't exist.

SalesianSDB · #6 Dec 4, '11, 11:23 am

I'm currently taking a New Testament course taught by an old Jesuit priest. His class was the first time I ever heard of Q and he made it sound as if it exists and as if there is in fact a Q.

patrick457 · #7 Dec 4, '11, 1:52 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by SalesianSDB

I'm currently taking a New Testament course taught by an old Jesuit priest. His class was the first time I ever heard of Q and he made it sound as if it exists and as if there is in fact a Q.

A common pitfall really, that.

porthos11 · #8 Dec 4, '11, 2:00 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marocchino

The documentary hypothesis - and historical criticism in general - is a superfluous theory in light of the perennial Catholic dogmas of divine inspiration and biblical inerrancy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zenkai

It wouldn't be accepted because it doesn't exist.

Both these responses fail to get the point of the original post which was a what-if. Yes, Q is only a hypothesis (one I don't subscribe to myself), but as a hypothesis, it is valid for what-if scenarios.

And the answer would be, if such a Q document were found, No. It would not have met all the criteria for determining inspiration, including constant use since the beginning of Christianity and its use in the Liturgy.

Brendan · #9 Dec 4, '11, 2:05 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by SalesianSDB

I'm currently taking a New Testament course taught by an old Jesuit priest. His class was the first time I ever heard of Q and he made it sound as if it exists and as if there is in fact a Q.

As a written Gospe? Almost certainly not.

As part of the common oral teachings of the Apostles, probably so.

Remember, the first of the Gospels was not written down until approx. AD 65-70. So the Apostles had preached about the life of Christ orally for 30+ years before the Spirit inspired the Evanglists to put ink to paper.

Q is most likely the oral Gospel of the Apostles.

patrick457 · #10 Dec 4, '11, 2:19 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brendan

As a written Gospe? Almost certainly not.

As part of the common oral teachings of the Apostles, probably so.

Remember, the first of the Gospels was not written down until approx. AD 65-70. So the Apostles had preached about the life of Christ orally for 30+ years before the Spirit inspired the Evanglists to put ink to paper.

Q is most likely the oral Gospel of the Apostles.

One could argue for that, but the general idea is that the Logienquelle (Logia-source) is a written document.

And to explain what it is: the Logienquelle is within the Two-source theory (aka Q theory) this document that Matthew and Luke drew upon for material which they both share which are not found in Mark (called double tradition, as opposed to triple tradition, i.e. material that all three Synoptics share). Within the theory, Matthew and Luke are postulated to not know each other's gospels due to a variety of reasons (the way they handle their double tradition material, for one), and so one needs something to explain the similar material you can find in both of them.

bmonk · #11 Dec 4, '11, 2:56 pm

First, Q would be more than an oral tradition; the similarities between Matthew and Luke that led to the the postulating of Q would almost certainly require a written document or collection of some sort.

Then, I suppose, the conditions around the discovery of Q might make a difference as to whether it were seen as inspired or not--but I suspect that it might be a valuable resource for understanding and studying the Gospels, but not seen as inspired itself. After all, the Church of the first Century that had access to it did not preserve it and use it as inspired.

thistle · #12 Dec 4, '11, 3:57 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by bmonk

First, Q would be more than an oral tradition; the similarities between Matthew and Luke that led to the the postulating of Q would almost certainly require a written document or collection of some sort.

Then, I suppose, the conditions around the discovery of Q might make a difference as to whether it were seen as inspired or not--but I suspect that it might be a valuable resource for understanding and studying the Gospels, but not seen as inspired itself. After all, the Church of the first Century that had access to it did not preserve it and use it as inspired.

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

Hokomai · #13 Dec 5, '11, 12:22 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by porthos11

Both these responses fail to get the point of the original post which was a what-if. Yes, Q is only a hypothesis (one I don't subscribe to myself), but as a hypothesis, it is valid for what-if scenarios.

And the answer would be, if such a Q document were found, No. It would not have met all the criteria for determining inspiration, including constant use since the beginning of Christianity and its use in the Liturgy.

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?

thistle · #14 Dec 5, '11, 12:41 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hokomai

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?

The canon was CLOSED at Trent. What part of CLOSED do you not understand? Nothing will be added.

Hokomai · #15 Dec 5, '11, 2:14 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by thistle

The canon was CLOSED at Trent. What part of CLOSED do you not understand? Nothing will be added.

Thistle, you continue to charm! I have a full understanding of the concept of 'closed'. In my house, doors that close can also open. I am asking, as a hypothetical question, what would happen in certain circumstances. Somehow I doubt that whoever is in change of these things at the Vatican would glance at the newly-found Q, or Z, and just say: "Closed!'. I think they would study, consider, decide and explain. I am asking, from my ignorance of such things, how this would take place.