Search Results

The Muratorian Fragment was first published in 1740 as an example of a barbarous scribal transcription. The beginning and probably the end of the Fragment are missing. A substantial portion of its poor Latin may be credited to the carelessness of the scribe of the Codex Muratorianus, which is especially apparent in a repeated passage of Ambrose following the Fragment. A plain reading of the Fragment suggests that it was composed shortly after the period which it attributes to Hermas's writing the Shepherd, namely, the episcopacy in Rome of Hermas's brother Pius. However, few scholars have been willing to date the Fragment so early, and have instead argued for composition anywhere between 170 and 220. Dating the Fragment by other references is inconclusive, and there has been no scholarly consensus about its authorship.

In 1964, Albert C. Sundberg, Jr., published a distinguished work on the Old Testament in the early Church. This well-received study refuted the hypothesis of an Alexandrian Jewish canon and radically changed the traditional understanding of the formation of the Christian Old Testament. It was not until 1973 that Sundberg published in full his argument for the redating of the Muratorian Fragment. He questioned the traditional late second-century dating and Westem provenance generally assigned to the Fragment since its publication in 1740. Instead he suggested an early fourth-century date and an Eastern (Syrian/ Palestinian) provenance. The idea of a later date for the Fragment in Sundberg's hypothesis deserves serious study and consideration because the date of the Muratorian Fragment is so crucial to the common understanding of the history of the New Testament.

While the traditional dating of the Muratorian Fragment has been based on its statements about the Shepherd of Hermas, those statements themselves appear to be erroneous or misleading on several accounts. First, the dating of the Shepherd in the Fragment during the episcopacy of Pius is uncorroborated and most probably incorrect. All other evidence suggests a date around AD 100. Second, the tradition of authorship for the Shepherd presented in the Fragment, namely by Pius's brother, is also unlikely to be correct, and is otherwise unknown until the fourth century. Third, the reception of the Shepherd in the church as depicted by the Fragment militates against the traditional dating of the latter.

There is clearly a strong case for proposing that the Fragment is an Eastern list of New Testament works originating from the fourth century. This provenance is supported by many details. Eusebius appears to be the individual within the history of the Canon who developed and prompted New Testament catalogues, and thus the Fragment most probably derives from some time after Eusebius. Several remarkable parallels with Epiphanius would seem to confirm a Syrian/Palestinian provenance around 375 for the Fragment, specifically the inclusion of the Wisdom of Solomon in a New Testament catalogue, the mention of a Marcionite Laodiceans and the presence of Revelation without comment. These, combined with the public reading of the Revelation of Peter noted in the Fragment and Sozomen, and various similarities with Jerome (392), seem to confirm that the Muratorian Fragment is not a Western late second-century document, but is instead a late fourth-century Eastern catalogue.

There are a number of peculiarities in the Muratorian Fragment which are often attributed to its barbarous Latin, omissions in the text, incorrect translation, poor transcription, or confusion on the part of the Fragmentist. In a number of these instances, however, the irregularity is removed with the supposition of a fourth-century Eastern origin for the Fragment. While none of these instances in itself is sufficient to demand redating of the Fragment, the cumulative effect is a substantial refutation of the traditional date, and corroborates the findings of the earlier chapters in favour of a later fourth-century date and an Eastern provenance.

The formation of the Christian canon of scriptures was a gradual process that culminated in the fourth century. Prior to that time the churches gathered together and defined a number of different collections which were later incorporated into the New Testament. The development of the New Testament collection was one of gradual accumulation and expansion into the fourth century. The Fourfold Gospel is the only subcanonical collection that appears closed before the actual activity of fourth-century canon-forming. It is only in that later process that the other collections appear to have been fixed and established. This chapter suggests that the hypothesis of a ‘core New Testament collection’ does not necessarily support the traditional dating of the Muratorian Fragment, but serves to emphasize the extraordinary character of its contents, if it is dated at the end of the second century.

Excluding the Muratorian Fragment, there are no catalogues of the Christian canon until the fourth century. The sudden and widespread appearance of New Testament catalogues confirms that the Fragment, if traditionally dated, is an anomaly in the formation of the canon. This chapter considers the various catalogues of the fourth century that are essential in understanding the place of the Fragment within the history of the canon. There is nothing about the form of the Fragment which distinguishes it from the fifteen undisputed catalogues of the fourth and early fifth centuries, and nothing that suggests that it was earlier than the others, or that it influenced their development. Rather, the Fragment appears as simply another New Testament list which ought to find its place among the others of that time.