Muratorian Fragment Research Articles

The Muratorian Fragment. Text, Translation, Commentary, written by Clare K. Rothschild

The Muratorian Fragment. Text, Translation, Commentary, written by Clare K. Rothschild

Issues surrounding the original language of the Muratorian Fragment

Issues surrounding the original language of the Muratorian Fragment

Book Review: The Date of the Muratorian Fragment By John F. Lingelbach

This book seeks to put an end to the debate concerning the date of production of the Muratorian Fragment by applying the second phase of the Inference to the Best Explanation method. The author presents extensive research on the debates, a clear methodology, and his own conclusions on the subject. This is a book mainly about New Testament canons and church authority, but also church history and historiography.

The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity: A Textual Analysis

The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity: A Textual Analysis

The Date of the Muratorian Fragment

Three hundred years after its discovery, scholars find themselves unable to determine the more likely of the two hypotheses regarding the date of the Muratorian Fragment, which consists of a catalog of New Testament texts. Is the Fragment a late second- to early third-century composition or a fourth-century composition? This present work seeks to break the impasse. The study found that, by making an inference to the best explanation, a second-century date for the Fragment is preferred. This methodology consists of weighing the two hypotheses against five criteria: plausibility, explanatory scope, explanatory power, credibility, and simplicity. What makes this current work unique in its contribution to church history and historical theology is that it marks the first time the rigorous application of an objective methodology, known as “inference to the best explanation” (or IBE), has been formally applied to the problem of the Fragment’s date.

The Muratorian Fragment as a Late Antique Fake?

Dans un article recent, Clare K. Rothschild a cherche a rouvrir le debat sur la date du Fragment de Muratori en proposant une these inedite : il s’agirait d’un faux tardif, qui s’inscrirait, selon les divers contextes historiques qu’elle propose, entre le ive et le viiie siecle, si ce n’est meme le ixe. Le present article entreprend une critique de cette these. Il rappelle en particulier que, puisque Chromace d’Aquilee (✝ 407) a connu et utilise le Fragment, toute date posterieure au debut du ve siecle est exclue en toute hypothese. Il attire egalement l’attention sur un probleme que C. K. Rothschild ne discute pas, celui de la langue originale du Fragment. Or, puisque le texte a ete compose en grec et non en latin, tout en etant vraisemblablement d’origine occidentale, une datation au iie siecle reste l’hypothese la plus plausible.

Israel-Vergessenheit in den Pastoralbriefen: Ein neuer Vorschlag zu ihrer historisch-theologischen Verortung im 2. Jahrhundert n. Chr. unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Ignatius-Briefe by Michael Theobald

Reviewed by: Israel-Vergessenheit in den Pastoralbriefen: Ein neuer Vorschlag zu ihrer historisch-theologischen Verortung im 2. Jahrhundert n. Chr. unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Ignatius-Briefe by Michael Theobald Linda M. Maloney michael theobald, Israel-Vergessenheit in den Pastoralbriefen: Ein neuer Vorschlag zu ihrer historisch-theologischen Verortung im 2. Jahrhundert n. Chr. unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Ignatius-Briefe (SBS 229; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2016). Pp. 428. Paper €38. This is a brick of a book. Those familiar with the usual length of the Stuttgarter Bibelstudien will find Michael Theobald's work has doubled it—but to good effect. Quite apart [End Page 147] from its thesis (more aptly stated in the subtitle than in the title, since the absence of Israel and of any Pauline relationship to Jerusalem in the Pastoral Letters is only the spark for the investigation), this volume is a mine of precious information and analysis. Michael Theobald succeeded Gerhard Lohfink in the professorship of NT at Tübingen. T. is a Pauline and Johannine specialist. Lohfink's primary focus was on the Lucan writings, but he also did some work on the Pastorals. (I should note that, as Lohfink's doctoral student 1984–1988, I was a minor participant in some of that work.). T. uses Lohfink's essays on the subject, especially "Die Vermittlung des Paulinismus zu den Pastoralbriefen" (first published in BZ 32 [1988] 169-88), and collected the following year in his Studien zum Neuen Testament (Stuttgarter biblische Aufsatzbände 5; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1989) as a springboard for his opening analysis, which agrees with his predecessor in general but not in some details. The present book opens with the statement that "forgetfulness of Israel" is a mark of many ancient Christian writings, including some of the "late" NT writings. From that starting point T. proceeds to a detailed examination of the (very much related!) content and dating of the Pastorals. Having written three volumes on Paul's letter to the Romans, T. is well qualified to discern the interrelationship between the Pastorals and that Pauline letter, which (in a fourteen-chapter form) he considers the model from which the author of the Pastorals worked. Theobald's second chapter, after the introduction, deals in rapid fashion with the "one-vs. two-imprisonments of Paul in Rome theory." In the third chapter he sets out some preliminary methodological decisions: (1) that the Pastorals are pseudonymous; (2) that the original order was Titus, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy; (3) that the author's concept was one of concealed pseudepigraphy, with materials from genuine Pauline letters used to integrate the pseudepigraphical "letters" into the Corpus Paulinum; (4) that the Pastorals are independent of Acts (which raises further interesting questions about the date and early circulation of that work). T. considers Eusebius to be the first known witness to a "canonical" reading of the Pastorals, and it may be worth noting at this point that he concludes his volume with a vigorous attack on the practice of "canonical" reading among today's exegetes. Two subsequent chapters (4 and 5) detail the relationship between the Pastorals and Romans; Paul's real, supposed, and projected itineraries are examined in detail, and the book contains a map of these. In chap. 6, T. relates the Pastorals to the Corpus Paulinum as it appears to have circulated in the period when the Pastorals were composed. In chap. 7, he examines early witnesses to the existence of a Pauline corpus (Marcion, the Muratorian fragment, Tertullian, p46). In chap. 8, he discusses the relationship of the Pastorals to the "apostolic fathers"—1 Clement briefly, and the Ignatian letters at some length, because T. is at pains to demonstrate that the latter are late and pseudepigraphical. Polycarp's letter to the Philippians is found to be the oldest witness to the Pastorals, in the early second half of the second century. In chap. 9, T. compares the itineraries of Paul in the Acts of Paul with those in the Pastorals and finds them remarkably similar. They focus on Asia Minor with a westward extension to Rome; again, there is no mention of a Pauline journey to Jerusalem, and this observation leads to...

Fundamentals of New Testament Textual Criticism ed. by Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts

Reviewed by: Fundamentals of New Testament Textual Criticism ed. by Stanley E. Porter and Andrew W. Pitts Scott Charlesworth stanley e. porter and andrew w. pitts, Fundamentals of New Testament Textual Criticism ( Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015). Pp. xvi + 202. Paper $22. Porter and Pitts have set out to fill a gap in the literature by writing a mid-level textbook for first- and second-year students of Greek. Their aim is to avoid both oversimplification and too much complexity by introducing NT textual criticism in enough detail to provide "exposure to major issues" (p. xiii). High expectations are dashed, however, when in chap. 1 they define the primary goal of textual criticism as "reconstruction of the original text of the NT" (p. 6). Omitted is any reference to theoretical discussions about the meaning of "original" and current preference for distinctions implied by use of the terms "authorial," "initial," and "archetype" (text). Is the rationale pragmatic, due to the limitations the authors have set themselves? If so, it cannot be justified. Moreover, the selected bibliography that follows this (and every other) chapter, which is designed to facilitate further study and make up for the paucity of footnotes, does not include any literature on the subject. In order to lay a foundation for exegesis, text-critical matters are "book-ended" by chaps. 2 and 13 on canon (the "domain of NT textual criticism") and English translations respectively. It is certainly right, as the authors explain, to get students thinking about all three areas before they come to exegesis, but the uncritical tone now becomes apologetic. The canon was established "as soon as the literature was written … and closed as soon as the last of the apostles died" (p. 30). The church did not then decide but discovered what was canonical (p. 30). The Canon 1 and 2 distinction is dismissed, and evidence to the contrary all but ignored, except as regards, for obvious reasons, the date of the Muratorian Fragment. Concerns about approach continue in chaps. 3 and 4 on materials, methods of classification, and major witnesses. There is apparent acceptance of Philip W. Comfort and David P. Barrett's consistently early dating of NT papyri (The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts [Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001] 58-59; cf. the endorsements [End Page 735] on pp. 46, 102), even though Comfort and Barrett's methodology has been roundly criticized by Pasquale Orsini and Willy Clarysse ("Early New Testament Manuscripts and Their Date," ETL 88 [2012] 443-74), who describe it as "theological palaeography." Additional questions about accuracy also start to arise. The review copy came with an errata slip correcting the highly inaccurate numbers of papyri, majuscules, minuscules, and lectionaries given in the book (p. 50). The notion of text-types, let alone geographically based text-types (so chap. 5), is under increasing challenge. While scribes in copying the text did not have license to change its essential meaning, the low-level "improvements" that were allowable all but disallow the classification of the papyri according to text-types. Again, there is no reference to current scholarly discussion of text-types in the text or bibliography. Chapter 6, however, contains a helpful introduction to textual variants with some input from linguistics. But students are also denied even-handed treatment in the methodological chaps. 7‒10. The Coherence-Based Genealogical Method is dismissed in a footnote (p. 90 n. 2) and the authors are ambivalent about whether students should even use the latest critical edition of the Greek New Testament (NA28, UBSGNT5) since it contains the text of the Catholic letters from the Editio Critica Maior (p. 147 n. 1). The ECM, as a result, is not among the critical editions discussed in chaps. 11‒12. In addition, the authors' strong preference for external evidence along with their hope that Sinaiticus, as "an ancient eclectic text that likely reflects or closely resembles the original" (p. 101), might become the diplomatic or base text of a future critical edition, risks "canonizing" a new "standard text" and diminishing the role of textual criticism. Finally, devaluation of the papyri (p. 102) in favor of the majuscules passes over the very important...

The Muratorian Fragment as Roman Fake

Abstract Today scholarship has reached an impasse as to the origin of the well-known fragment published by L. A. Muratori. Approximately half accepts a second-century Roman provenance based on views held by, for example, Adolf von Harnack and Samuel Tregelles. The other half, following Albert C. Sundberg Jr., accepts a fourth-century Eastern provenance. This paper argues that the Fragment represents an attempt to provide a venerable second-century precedent for a later position on canon. The present essay restricts itself to three aspects of the debate: (1) initial discovery; (2) Fraternity Legend and Catalogue of Heresies; and, (3) historical settings in which such a text might have emerged.

The Original Language of the Muratorian Fragment:

The Original Language of the Muratorian Fragment:

The Four-Gospel 'Canon' in the Epistula Apostolorum

The four-gospel canon is first explicitly defended by Irenaeus in the decade of the 180s, but also assumed by Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Tatian's Diatessaron, and the Muratorian Fragment. Its origin, then, must lie prior to Irenaeus. The witness of the Epistula Apostolorum allows us to place the collection of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, and no others, as early as the 140s. Use of the criterion of redaction demonstrates that the Epistula's author knew and highly valued the Gospel of John. He also knew and made use of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. The criterion of redaction is less useful when applied to the Gospel of Mark. Nonetheless, it can be shown that the author of the Epistula alluded to the earliest gospel on at least one occasion. In addition, there is no compelling evidence that the Epistula's author knew or made use of a gospel other than the canonical four. Since, in all probability, this Christian apocryphon was composed prior to 150, we have in the Epistula evidence for a collection of the four Gospels decades before Irenaeus’ defence of the fourfold Gospel and even slightly before Marcion's attempt to restrict the Gospel to his edited version of Luke.

Victorinus of Pettau as the Author of the Canon Muratori

AbstractThe present author contends that the Muratorian Fragment can be attributed directly to the third-century bishop Victorinus of Pettau. The argument outlined in this article is bipartite. First, Victorinus documents more parallels to the Fragment than any other ancient author. Second, several of the otherwise inexplicable oddities of the Fragment are rendered intelligible by a Victorinan theory of authorship.

Czy kolejność ksiąg Nowego Testamentu w kanonie jest przypadkowa?

Decretum de canonicis Scripturis (Council of Trent) gives the following list of the canonical books of the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts of the Apostles, Pauline Epistles, Catholic Epistles, Revelation. This order is based on many manuscripts, but is not the only one known. The Apostolic Fathers cite the books of the New Testament, but never give their titles. The books were only given titles in the late second century. The Muratorian fragment is the oldest document (the second half of the 2nd century) which enumerates canonical books in an appropriate order. The important fact is that this list was prepared in the Roman Church and the order is in accordance with our canon. The Muratorian fragment presents the list of books in the reverse alphabetical order (from Z to A). It is a consequence of the tendency to order books alphabetically (not only in codices). Due to the fact that the oldest list of canonical books enlists them in the same order as we do in our canon and this order is not random, the order in our canon seems to be authentic.

The Reception of Luke and Acts and the Unity of Luke—Acts

This article argues that Irenaeus and the author of the Muratorian Fragment each read Luke and Acts as two elements of one literary whole, but that Irenaeus's understanding of what this literary unity entails appears to have been different from that of many modern scholarly readings of Luke—Acts. It also argues that there is reason to believe that Luke intended his two volumes to circulate together, and offers hermeneutical reflections on the fact that they have not always been read in this way. Two different approaches to the reception of Luke and Acts are identified and the merits of each are discussed.

The Integrity of the Biblical Canon in Light of Its Historical Development

Abstract The following essay argues that the final fixing of the Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian biblical canon did not emerge until the middle to the late fourth century, even though the long process that led to the canonization of the Hebrew scriptures began in the sixth or fifth century BCE and of the New Testament scriptures in the second century CE. Pivotal in the arguments for an early dating of the Hebrew Scriptures is the lack of unequivocal evidence for the fixation of the Old Testament canon in the time before Christ but also the emergence of canonical lists of scriptures only in the fourth century CE. It is also argued that the Muratorian Fragment originated in the middle of late fourth century CE. The paper concludes with a discussion of viability of the traditional criteria of canonicity and whether these criteria should be reapplied to the biblical literature in light of more recent conclusions about authorship, date, theological emphasis, and widespread appeal in antiquity.

The Integrity of the Biblical Canon in Light of Its Historical Development

AbstractThe following essay argues that the final fixing of the Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian biblical canon did not emerge until the middle to the late fourth century, even though the long process that led to the canonization of the Hebrew scriptures began in the sixth or fifth century BCE and of the New Testament scriptures in the second century CE. Pivotal in the arguments for an early dating of the Hebrew Scriptures is the lack of unequivocal evidence for the fixation of the Old Testament canon in the time before Christ but also the emergence of canonical lists of scriptures only in the fourth century CE. It is also argued that the Muratorian Fragment originated in the middle of late fourth century CE. The paper concludes with a discussion of viability of the traditional criteria of canonicity and whether these criteria should be reapplied to the biblical literature in light of more recent conclusions about authorship, date, theological emphasis, and widespread appeal in antiquity.

Book Reviews : Date of the Muratorian Fragment

Book Reviews : Date of the Muratorian Fragment

The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon (review)

The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon (review)

The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon

The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon